Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Stanmore Unused Burial Ground [Lords],

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Blackburn Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CALNE WATER) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Calne Waterworks Company, Limited," presented by Mr. Bernays; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 149.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CHOLDERTON AND DISTRICT WATER) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Cholderton Water Company, Limited," presented by Mr. Bernays; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 150.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TORQUAY) BILL,

" to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the borough of Torquay," presented by Mr. Bernays; read the First time; and referred to the

Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 151.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

MILK (ADULTERATION).

Mr. T. Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that during the year 1937, out of 354 test samples of milk taken by the health authorities in the city of Aberdeen, 95 were found to be adulterated; whether this adulteration is the highest percentage in the large burghs of Scotland; and that similar test samples of milk taken in the county of Aberdeen disclosed adulteration of over 56 per cent. of the samples taken; whether this is the highest ratio of adulteration among the counties of Scotland; and whether he can give any reason for this state of affairs?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): In the case of the city of Aberdeen, the 354 test samples referred to—which are not formal samples taken for the purposes of the Food and Drugs Acts—included 208 samples taken from a single herd at its owner's request; and 87 out of the total of 95 samples found to be under standard were from this herd. In the case of the county of Aberdeen, the test samples in question were taken with the object of securing improvement in the quality of the milk from byres where formal samples already taken for the purposes of the Acts had been found to be under standard. In neither case, therefore, can a valid comparison with other areas be made.

Mr. Johnston: Does not the Secretary of State think that there is something seriously wrong when, in a county area, suppliers of milk are discovered to have 56 per cent. of the samples taken adulterated? Is not that the highest percentage in all Scotland?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: My answer indicates that there are special circumstances attaching to this case.

Sir Douglas Thomson: Could my right hon. and gallant Friend give the figures for the official samples, as distinguished from the informal samples?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Not without notice.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Has the Secretary of State any reason to suppose that adulteration of milk is prevalent throughout Scotland to an extent such as this?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: No, Sir; I do not think there is any information to support that general statement.

Mr. Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why, during the year 1937, no test samples of milk were taken for analysis in the counties of Bute, Caithness, Orkney, Renfrew, Ross and Cromarty, and Zetland or in the burghs of Ayr, Coatbridge, and Dumfries; and whether he is satisfied that there was no occasion or necessity for causing any test samples of milk to be taken in these areas?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Although no test samples were taken in areas referred to, formal sampling under the Food and Drugs Acts was carried out. The Food and Drugs Acts do not impose on local authorities any duty to take test samples, although most local authorities take such samples as a means of ascertaining where formal sampling is called for, or of assisting producers to detect the reasons why their milk is not up to the standard. An examination of the sampling reports for 1937 is being made by the Department of Health with a view to asking local authorities to increase their sampling activities where this appears necessary.

Sir Edmund Findlay: Cannot that be made more definite, so that it shall be a requirement that local authorities shall test milk?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: When the examination to which I have referred is finished, we shall see whether further steps are desirable in that direction.

DISEASED POULTRY (MARKETING).

Mr. Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the health administrative area in Scotland where, during the year 1937, certain farmers were in the habit of sending their diseased fowls to the market irrespective of condition or probable use; and whether, when these fowls were discovered and seized under Section 43 of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, the vendors were prosecuted, and with what results?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: In order to control the condition of fowls offered for sale in Ayr, the town council have standing arrangements for the inspection of fowls at the Ayr cattle market. Under these arrangements, fowls offered for sale for human consumption may be traced, and, if found to be diseased, are seized and destroyed, and when the evidence is sufficient the owners are prosecuted. It is understood that there were no prosecutions in 1937.

Mr. Johnston: Are we to understand, from that reply, that Ayrshire is the only health administrative area in Scotland where these precautions are taken; and why is it specially indicated in the annual report of the Department of Health for Scotland that these fowls were sent into the market in a diseased condition?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I should require notice of that question.

BARLINNIE PRISON (RULES).

Mr. McGovern: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the terms of prison rule No. 153 governing the duties of the Governor, and the extent to which this rule is complied with in Barlinnie Prison?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The Prison Rule referred to reads as follows:
 The Governor shall arrange that male prisoners who are physically fit shall be exercised in physical drill.
Owing to the large number of prisoners in Barlinnie Prison, and the limited space available, it is not practicable to extend daily physical drill to all prisoners who are fit. In fact, a substantial number of prisoners receive physical drill, and those who do not receive such drill have physical exercise for three-quarters of an hour each day.

Mr. McGovern: In view of the fact that this rule and many other rules are not complied with, has the Secretary of State any proposals to make whereby the rules shall be carried out and physical training given?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I have explained the administrative difficulty of carrying out the rules fully in this case, but I am looking into the matter.

EMPIRE EXHIBITION (ACCIDENT).

Mr. McGovern: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the cause of the


accident at the sports ground of the Empire Exhibition at Bellahouston Park, Glasgow, when a number of persons were injured, one of whom has since died; whether the sports machines were passed after inspection; the cause of the accident; and whether all these machines are regularly inspected and by whom are they inspected?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I am informed that the facts have been reported to the Crown authorities, and, pending their consideration of the matter, I am not in a position to make any statement as to the circumstances of the accident. I may add that, with the object of avoiding similar accidents in future, an additional safety device has been fitted to each carriage on the machine, at the direction of the Master of Works of the City of Glasgow.

Mr. McGovern: Will the Secretary of State take into consideration the daring and dangerous character of many of these machines, and see that they are inspected regularly?

Lieut.-Coionel Colville: The hon. Member has now raised a rather wider question. So far as this case is concerned, the matter is now in the hands of the Crown authorities.

Mr. Maxton: The last part of my hon. Friend's question does raise the wider point. Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say specifically whether amusement machines of this description are inspected by anyone at any time?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I cannot say that that is so in the case of all the devices in the entertainment parks. I shall, however, look into the point that the hon. Member has raised.

FINES.

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total amount of fines imposed in the High Court, Sheriff Courts, Police Courts, and other courts, respectively, in Scotland, collated for counties in which they were imposed, for each of the last three years; what amount of these fines in each county was discharged by the persons sentenced undergoing imprisonment and the number of persons concerned; and how much of the remaining amount of fines is still outstanding?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I regret that the information desired by the hon. and learned Member is not available, but, with his permission, I propose to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT statements showing, for each of the years 1934, 1935, and 1936, particulars of the total amounts received by way of fines imposed by summary courts and of the numbers of persons who underwent imprisonment for non-payment of fines imposed by summary courts.

Mr. Gibson: Are these figures not available for the year 1937?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: No, Sir, not yet; I can only give them up to the end of 1936 at present.

Following are the statements:

(1) Cash received from Fines imposed by Summary Courts.


—
1934.
1935.
1936.



£
£
£


Aberdeen
3,413
3,421
3,897


Angus
2,270
2,280
3,372


Argyll
611
559
583


Ayr
4,965
6,655
6,914


Banff
683
458
446


Berwick
385
756
1,125


Bute
247
213
347


Caithness
322
200
444


Clackmannan
450
379
438


Dumbarton
1,802
1,648
2,589


Dumfries.
1,449
1,380
1,527


East Lothian
291
454
540


Fife
2,750
3,715
5,213


Inverness
913
785
893


Kincardine
710
567
468


Kinross
189
229
238


Kirkcudbright
577
716
574


Lanark
22,768
26,127
29,867


Midlothian
11,140
13,316
13,806


Moray
464
442
470


Nairn
97
64
67


Orkney
69
121
109


Peebles
259
457
380


Perth
2,232
2,466
3,064


Renfrew
4,190
4,676
5,138


Ross and Cromarty
652
572
554


Roxburgh
479
586
632


Selkirk
114
247
161


Stirling
2,752
2,378
2,538


Sutherland
385
156
151


West Lothian
830
1,114
1,253


Wigtown
627
287
444


Zetland
188
48
97



£69,273
£77,472
£88,339

NOTE.—The total amounts received in the years 1934, 1935 and 1936 from fines imposed by Courts, other than Summary Courts, were £1,611, £1,077 and £971 respectively.

(2) Numbers of persons imprisoned for non-payment of fines imposed by Summary Courts.


A. Number of persons imprisoned in each year for non-payment of fines imposed in that year by Summary Courts.


B. Number of persons included in previous column who paid part of the fines during imprisonment and were released before completing the full sentence.







1934.
1935.
1936.


County.













A.
B.
A.
B.
A.
B.


Aberdeen

…
…
…
280
70
267
82
203
67


Angus

…
…
…
412
107
393
115
359
104


Argyll

…
…
…
37
13
20
3
13
4


Ayr
…
…
…
…
330
81
301
117
242
89


Banff

…
…
…
22
3
45
4
33
4


Berwick

…
…
…
14
2
15
2
17
5


Bute
…
…
…
…
20
8
15
11
13
3


Caithness

…
…
…
6
1
6
3
5
—


Clackmannan


…
…
15
2
12
—
10
1


Dumbarton

…
…
…
146
50
157
49
156
58


Dumfries

…
…
…
51
16
62
38
59
35


East Lothian


…
…
29
2
51
8
31
11


Fife
…
…
…
…
123
29
157
43
164
35


Inverness

…
…
…
56
23
34
9
33
15


Kincardine

…
…
…
11
1
12
3
11
4


Kinross

…
…
…
3
—
2
—
3
—


Kirkcudbright


…
…
56
10
58
20
23
8


Lanark

…
…
…
4,635
l,550
4,190
1,479
4,012
1,410


Midlothian

…
…
…
982
318
948
272
1,056
376


Moray

…
…
…
35
8
58
16
42
6


Nairn

…
…
…
5
1
6
1
6
1


Orkney

…
…
…
—
—
—
—
2
—


Peebles

…
…
…
14
1
14
3
14
7


Perth

…
…
…
288
98
244
84
263
107


Renfrew

…
…
…
358
126
382
123
376
120


Ross and Cromarty



…
12
5
14
2
15
3


Roxburgh

…
…
…
58
12
79
23
57
19


Selkirk

…
…
…
31
4
22
7
45
7


Stirling

…
…
…
285
49
238
45
186
28


Sutherland

…
…
…
—
—
5
2
6
1


West Lothian


…
…
54
10
32
12
52
9


Wigtown

…
…
…
8
1
2
—
9
5


Zetland

…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—


Totals
…
…
8,376
2,601
7,841
2,564
7,516
2,531

MENTAL HOSPITAL STAFFS (HOURS).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what local authorities in Scotland have, during the current year, made alterations in the hours of work per week for the nursing staffs of mental institutions in their respective jurisdictions; what institutions are affected, and what is the nature of the respective alterations; and what local authorities still have a working week of over 55 hours for such workers, and what are the institutions affected?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Steps have been taken to obtain from local authorities the particulars desired. A statement will be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as the information is received.

SENTENCE, GLASGOW.

Mr. McGovern: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the sentence of 12 months passed on Mrs. Laurie, 43, Denbeck Street, Shettleston, for the murder of her son and attempted suicide; whether he is aware that she was confined to the Royal Infirmary for one month and Duke Street prison for two months; and whether he will inquire further into her case with a view to exercising his right of clemency to Mrs. Laurie in view of her serious mental and financial position previous to her grave act?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: As regards the first two parts of the question, I am aware that the woman referred to was sentenced


to 12 months' imprisonment for culpable homicide on 5th April, and that prior to her conviction she was detained in the Glasgow Royal Infirmary and Duke Street Prison for about one month and two months, respectively. A medical report obtained by me shows that Mrs. Laurie's mental and physical condition have improved under the treatment which she is receiving in prison, and, after careful consideration, I have reached the conclusion that I would not be justified in advising her release at the present time The case will, however, be reviewed periodically.

Mr. McGovern: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman review this case again, and take into consideration the fact that this woman is suffering from a very severe mental and financial strain which brought about the tragedy; that she has six young children in the home; and that one of these children is lying in hospital with tuberculosis? Are not these circumstances sufficient to give the right hon. and gallant Gentleman reason for an act of clemency?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I have said that on the information before me I do not think I am justified in advising her release at the present time, but I shall review the case periodically, and shall bear in mind, in that review, the point that the hon. Member has raised and other relevant circumstances.

Mr. McGovern: Will the Secretary of State be prepared to discuss with me privately some points in relation to the case?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: indicated assent.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of air-raid protection schemes submitted by Scottish local authorities up to date, and the number accepted and rejected by his Department?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The Air-Raid Precautions Department are constantly engaged in considering and authorising arrangements on particular matters which are submitted to them by local authorities, and considerable progress is being made in the preparation of air raid general precautions schemes. No complete schemes have yet been formally submitted. As regards air-raid fire precautions schemes, 33 Scottish local authorities have submitted

schemes either separately or in combination. 14 schemes have been approved in principle, though not in every case in complete detail. None has been rejected, but many are the subject of correspondence.

Mr. Davidson: In view of the lapse of time since air-raid precautions were introduced, and of the fact that up to the present no complete schemes have been submitted, is the Minister satisfied that adequate progress is being made?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: We are doing our best to push on. The hon. Member will appreciate that the full scheme is an elaborate affair. My answer indicates progress in a number of directions.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of gas-mask distributive centres now established in Scotland?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: No local respirator stores have yet been established in Scotland, but proposals for such stores have been submitted by several local authorities, and are under consideration.

Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is the answer that has been given to this question for many months? In view of the fact that only one store has been established in Scotland after all these years, can he indicate when local centres will be established in the various parts of Scotland?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Not much time has elapsed since local authorities had an opportunity of making proposals. Certain local authorities, including Glasgow, have made proposals, and no time will be lost in considering them with a view to setting up stores.

Mr. Davidson: Is there any dissatisfaction among the Scottish local authorities with regard to the setting up of these stores?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: It is for the local authorities to submit proposals.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: When the right hon. Gentleman is considering the possibility of creating gas-mask distribution centres will he bear in mind the necessity for a gas school?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: That is a separate question.

Sir E. Findlay: When the right hon. Gentleman is considering all this, will he remember that Scotland is considerably further from the danger centre, that the danger in Scotland is much less, and that a lot of money might be wasted?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

MINE EXPLOSIONS.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines at how many of the pits where explosions have occurred since 1930 was the strip method of packing adopted, and at how many was the method of complete tight-packing adopted?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): So far as information is available, it indicates that at 48 of the 91 collieries at which explosions involving loss of life occurred between the beginning of 1930 and the end of 1937, and in the district of the mine involved in the explosion, either strip packs were used or the wastes were not packed. Solid packing was practised in two of the districts involved. A number of the explosions occurred in bord and pillar workings or narrow places, where the question of packing did not arise.

Mr. Griffiths: In view of the figures which have been given, have any recommendations been made to impose tight packs upon those collieries where explosions have occurred?

Mr. Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of explosions that have occurred in the coal mines of the country from 1930 to date; and at how many of the pits where these explosions occurred electrically driven coal-cutting and/or coal-conveying machines were in use; and at how many of these pits such machinery was operated by compressed air?

Captain Crookshank: Between the beginning of 1930 and the end of 1937, 91 explosions involving loss of life occurred. Of these, 45 took place at mines in which all the coal-cutting or conveying machinery was electrically driven, 15 at mines in which all such machinery was driven by compressed air, 12 at mines in which both electricity and compressed air were used for the purpose, and 19 at

mines in which neither was used. In many instances where coal-cutting or conveying machinery was installed at the mine, there was none at the place where the explosion occurred, and in a number of other instances where such machinery was installed at that place it was not in use at the time of the explosion.

Mr. Griffiths: Do the figures reveal that, since there has been a general adoption of electrically-driven cutters in this country, the number of explosions and ignitions has been increasing?

Captain Crookshank: I shall have to refresh my memory from the statistics before I can answer that.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister, when appointing inspectors, consider the advisability, with so much mechanisation going on in the mines, of appointing individuals with practical engineering experience?

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that the number of explosions from 1930 to date in this country compare unfavourably with those in every other mining country in the world, and has the time not come to take some fundamental action?

Captain Crookshank: The hon. Member raises a much bigger question than that on the Paper.

Mr. Kirkwood: May I have an answer to my question?

HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of mining districts in which agreements have been concluded for holidays with pay; the approximate number of workers covered by such agreements; and how many are to operate this year?

Captain Crookshank: Agreements for holidays with pay affecting the main classes of workpeople have been concluded in South Wales and Monmouthshire, Durham, Lancashire and Cheshire, Nottinghamshire, North Derbyshire, North Staffordshire, Cannock Chase, North Wales, Cumberland, and Forest of Dean. These agreements all operate wholly or partially this year and approximately 443,000 workpeople are affected. Negotiations are in progress in the other districts.

Mr. Smith: Are there any special difficulties in the way of settlements in the other districts?

Captain Crookshank: No, Sir, not that I know of. Negotiations are in progress.

Mr. George Griffiths: Does the Minister know that the cost of all the holidays with pay comes out of the wages ascertainments?

MARKHAM COLLIERY DISASTER (INVESTIGATION).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is now in a position to give a reply to the suggestion made to him by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) asking that an independent person be appointed to conduct the inquiry to be made into the cause of the disaster which occurred at Markham Colliery, Chesterfield, on 10th May?

Captain Crookshank: I have directed that a formal investigation into the causes of this explosion shall be held in pursuance of Section 83 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911. In selecting the Commissioner the suggestion of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) and all other relevant considerations will be borne in mind; and a public announcement of the appointment will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Tinker: The answer is hardly satisfactory. Could I get further information if I put the question down again next week?

Captain Crookshank: Yes. I said that I wanted to make a public announcement as soon as possible. If the hon. Member will consult me as to the day, I will do so.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the Minister bear in mind that, after searching inquiries of this kind, there was a general demand that there should be an inquiry which was more in the nature of a public inquiry, with an independent chairman; and does not the Minister regard it as being very essential that public confidence in these matters should be maintained?

Captain Crookshank: Perhaps the hon. Member will see what I said in reply to the question which the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) asked the other day.

Mr. T. Williams: Will the Minister, prior to the appointment of the investigators, consult the Miners' Federation of Great Britain?

ACCIDENTS (STATISTICS).

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of persons killed and seriously injured above and below ground during 1938, and the causes thereof?

Captain Crookshank: The total number killed this year up to 30th April was 283, and the number seriously injured was 1,098. I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Smith: Am I to take it that those figures do not include the latest explosions?

Captain Crookshank: They are correct up to 30th April.

Mr. Smith: In view of the fact that many inspectors have stated that machine-mining increases the risk of explosions, do not the Department contemplate getting statistics showing the number of accidents in hand-got places and on machine faces?

Captain Crookshank: I would like notice of that question.

Following is the information:

Number of persons killed and seriously* injured at mines under the Coal Mines Act during the four months ended 30th April, 1938.


Cause.
Number Killed.
Number Seriously Injured.*


Underground.




By Falls of Ground:




(a) At Working Face
101
410


(b) On Roads
36
76


Haulage Accidents
72
278


By Explosions
1
14


Miscellaneous
47
228


Total Underground
257
1,006


Surface.




On Railways, Sidings and Tramways.
11
34


Other Surface Accidents
15
58


Total on Surface
26
92


Total (Underground and Surface).
283
1,098

* i.e., Injuries which, because of their nature or severity are, under the terms of Section 80 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, required to be reported to His Majesty's Divisional Inspectors at the time of their occurrence.

SAFETY IN MINES (COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Mr. Batey: asked the Secretary for Mines the date of the appointment of the Royal Commission on safety legislation for coal mines; and when he expects to receive the Commission's report?

Captain Crookshank: The answer to the first part of the question is 14th December, 1935; and to the second, that I have communicated again with the Commission but cannot add anything at present to the answer given on 5th April last to the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald), a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member.

Mr. Batey: Seeing that it is nearly three years since the Commission were appointed, does the Minister not consider that it is time to urge them to let him have the report, in view of the need for safety regulations?

Captain Crookshank: Yes, Sir. I am quite satisfied that the Commission are only too anxious to send their report in as soon as possible. They are working to that end.

ELECTRICITY IN MINES.

Mr. Batey: asked the Secretary for Mines whether, without waiting longer for the report of the Royal Commission, he will take steps to make it illegal to use electricity to drive machines in coal mines?

Captain Crookshank: No, Sir.

Mr. Batey: Is the Minister aware that the Deputy Chief Inspector of Mines made an investigation into the incidence of explosions in France, and said in his report that, while there had been 17 explosions, causing 86 deaths, over a certain period here, due to electricity, there had been only one explosion, causing one death, over the same period in France? Does that not show the need for making electricity illegal in connection with this machinery?

Captain Crookshank: It does not necessarily follow. As the hon. Member knows, this is one of the most important questions which the Royal Commission are now considering. Having arranged for such a Commission to be set up, it would be obviously wrong for action of such a fundamental nature to be taken without

full consideration having been given by the Commissioners to the evidence put before them.

Mr. Batey: In view of the latest explosion, is there not urgent need for something to be done without waiting for the Commission's report? In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

MINE INSPECTORS.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines what increase has been made, or is contemplated, in the number of His Majesty's inspectors of mines; to what divisions these additional inspectors will be allocated; and whether he is satisfied that the increased inspectorate will be able to make an adequate number of inspections of the mines in the afternoon and night as well as the day shifts?

Captain Crookshank: Ten of the 16 additional posts in the Mines Inspectorate, the creation of which I announced in July last, have been filled, and have been allocated as follows: two to the No. 1, or Scotland Division, two to the No. 6, or Cardiff and Forest of Dean Division, and one to each of the remaining six divisions. A selection board is now engaged in interviewing candidates for sub-inspectorships from among whom some of the six remaining posts may be filled. The allocation of these posts among the divisions will fall to be decided when the final selections have been made. As regards the last part of the question, I am satisfied that this addition to the inspectorate will be sufficient substantially to increase the amount of inspection on the night and afternoon shifts.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister satisfied now that the additional appointments that are being made will enable the inspectors to make regular inspections on the afternoon and night shifts? Is he satisfied that they will enable more inspections to be made?

Captain Crookshank: It certainly will enable more inspections to be made, and, of course, the whole point of the inspections is that they should not be regular.

Mr. Kirkwood: In view of the mechanisation of the mines, will the Minister see that he appoints inspectors who have


engineering and practical experience, which they have not had up to the present?

Captain Crookshank: There is a selection board, on which a variety of important persons sit, to consider these matters, and they will, no doubt, take note of the question of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. T. Williams: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that more shots are being fired between midnight and 6 a.m. than at any other time, in the mines, and that it is essential that more inspections should take place between those hours?

Captain Crookshank: I said that the object of this is to increase the number.

SOUTH AFRICA (NATIVES REPRESENTATION COUNCIL).

Mr. David Grenfell: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has received copies of the proceedings of the first meeting of the Natives Representation Council set up under the Union Representation of Natives Act, 1936, which was held at Pretoria at the end of last year; and, if so, whether copies could be made available?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): In the unavoidable absence of my Noble Friend, I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir. My Noble Friend is arranging for a copy of the report to be placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Grenfell: Does that mean that the copies are to be limited to one copy, and cannot hon. Members obtain copies from the Vote Office?

Mr. MacDonald: I do not know how many copies may be available in the Dominions Office, but I will let my Noble Friend know what the hon. Member has said.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (NATIVES).

Mr. Ammon: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has now received any report from the Government of Southern Rhodesia concerning the arrests of native women in Salisbury on the ground that they have come to the township to do shopping without the

permit required under the Native Registration Act?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Yes, Sir. The Government of Southern Rhodesia have informed my Noble Friend that no arrests have been made of native women going to Salisbury to do their shopping, and that there has been a steady decline since 1934 in the number of women prosecuted under the Natives Registration legislation.

Mr. Ammon: Is it necessary that these women should have a pass when doing their shopping?

Mr. MacDonald: They have been informed of the requirements of the Act which necessitates passes in these cases.

Mr. Riley: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to induce the Government of Southern Rhodesia to remove the limitations of reasonable liberty on these people?

Mr. MacDonald: I am aware that the Government of Southern Rhodesia are administering this legislation as sympathetically as possible.

Mr. Paling: Is it not a sad commentary on our ideas of government that native women have to obtain passes to move about freely in the towns of their own country?

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what steps the Government of Southern Rhodesia are contemplating to secure compensation to the interests of native businesses in Salisbury which may suffer injury under the new scheme for the expropriation of such businesses and their establishment in a location outside the city?

Mr. MacDonald: Section 32 of the Southern Rhodesia Land Apportionment Act, 1930, provides that the Governor-in-Council may, on the setting aside of any area by a local authority for native occupation, expropriate existing native rights outside that area, and that the amount of compensation, if not mutually agreed, must be fixed by arbitration. The Southern Rhodesia Government consider that this provision amply safeguards the interests of native businesses at present established in Salisbury.

Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the discrimination and the injustice which are


done to large numbers of native people by moving them from their own property into native locations, will the right hon. Gentleman make representations that adequate compensation for goodwill in respect of their businesses and their land should be given?

Mr. MacDonald: The provision of the Act allows compensation to be paid, and no doubt every relevant consideration is taken into account. I would point out that these provisions were drawn up at the time when there was a Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs belonging to the hon. Member's party in office.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRALIA.

LOANS.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will inform the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia that the recent failure of the flotation of a loan indicates that investors are of the opinion that a proportion of the existing Australian loans issued in London should be repatriated to Australia, and that, until this is done, it would not be advisable to attempt to float another loan in London?

Mr. M. MacDonald: No, Sir.

Mr. Liddall: Is it not obvious that investors are looking at this question from that point of view?

Mr. Maxton: Will not the right hon. Gentleman try to get the same kind of row with Australia as you have got going with Mexico?

UNITED KINGDOM MIGRANTS.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can give any information as to the present negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Dominion of Australia concerning emigration

Mr. M. MacDonald: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 9th March to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) regarding the renewal of the grant of assisted passages to Australia in respect of two classes of migrants. since that date, as a result of consultation between the United Kingdom Government and Commonwealth Government, it has been announced by the latter

that a third class may be considered for the grant of assisted passages to Australia, namely, persons who have not been nominated by friends or relatives in Australia, but which would be in possession on arrival there of certain specified minimum amounts of capital. It was indicated in the announcement that possession of the amount of capital stated would not, of itself, entitle the persons concerned to receive assisted passages, but that careful investigation would be made into each case by the Commonwealth migration authorities in London with a view to determining whether applicants were likely to become successfully established in Australia.

Mr. Annesley Somerville: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there has been any recent revival of emigration to Australia?

Mr. MacDonald: I understand that a good many applicants have come forward to the Australian authorities in London, and that the whole question is now being actively considered there.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that shiploads of Italian emigrants are now landing in Australia, and would he not suggest to Signor Mussolini to send them to his own newly acquired colonies instead?

NEWFOUNDLAND.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs particulars of the latest figures he has received of the number of persons receiving relief during the last winter in Newfoundland; and whether, according to his reports, the conditions for marketing codfish and other products in the foreign markets have recently shown any improvement?

Mr. M. Macdonald: The total number of persons in Newfoundland, including women and children, in receipt of relief in March was 63,778, which is considerably lower than the figure for some years past. As regards the second part of the question, conditions for the marketing of codfish have been adversely affected for some time past by the civil war in Spain, which has led not only to a considerable reduction in exports to the Spanish market, but also to increased competition in other markets. The difficulties experienced on this account have


of late been further accentuated by the imposition in Brazil of new taxes on fish products which, although recently reduced in part, are still so high as to have a crippling effect on imports. Representations with a view to the further reduction of these taxes have been made to the Brazilian Government. As regards other products, the paper industry has shown a decline in recent months and the Paper Mills in the Island are at present working on part time. Activity in the mining industry continues unchecked, and both the iron-ore and the lead and zinc mines are working to capacity.

Mr. Day: Do the recent reports show whether the economic position has improved?

Mr. MacDonald: The answer contains a very comprehensive statement of the general position.

WAR RISKS INSURANCE.

Mr. Storey: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any decision has yet been reached as to a scheme for compensation to property owners for damage caused by enemy action in time of war?

Major Sir Herbert Cayzer: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the recent decision of the British insurance companies and underwriters that they are unable to cover private property against damage or destruction as the result of enemy action in war time, he is now able to say what progress has been made in the inauguration of a Government scheme to cover this risk?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): As I explained in my answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Wandsworth Central (Colonel Nathan) and the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Joel) on 2nd November last, the question of putting into operation any scheme of compensation, should the contingency arise, would be one for the Government of the day to decide in the light of the circumstances of the time. Such preparatory work as can usefully be undertaken in time of peace to facilitate the eventual application of a scheme of compensation is well in hand.

Mr. Kirkwood: In considering the possibility of having a scheme to compensate

the owners of property in the event of damage and destruction caused by air raids, will the Government also consider the possibility of having a scheme to provide compensation for the loss of breadwinners who are killed as the result of air raids?

Mr. Stanley: That question raises rather a different point, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put it down.

Mr. Kirkwood: I will.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

GERMANY.

Major Dower: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the maximum rates of duty conceded to Germany under the Trade Agreement of 1933 are affording, when subsidy is taken into consideration, the same amount of protection as that which they were designed to afford when the Agreement was signed?

Mr. Stanley: The duties to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers are, with one exception, ad valorem duties. The extent to which such duties may have been offset to the German manufacturer by payment of subsidy is not a matter on which any detailed information is available, but I would point out that the average value of imports from Germany of certain goods covered by the Trade Agreement of 1933 is now higher than when that Agreement was made.

Major Dower: That may be so in one or two cases, but would it not be possible for my right hon. Friend to see that the spirit of the Agreement is carried out?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. and gallant Member has asked me a specific question. In these cases the duties are ad valorem duties, and the effect of an increase in price means that the duty is increased accordingly and, therefore, there is the same amount of protection as previously.

Mr. Levy: Would it not be wise to have a specific duty and an ad valorem duty so that whichever suited better could be used in cases of this kind?

Mr. Stanley: Quite clearly in cases of this kind where fears are expressed of dumping in this country, the matter would have to be considered if prices fell,


but, as I have pointed out, the price has been rising and, therefore, an ad valorem duty has a greater effect than a specific duty.

Sir C. Granville Gibson: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that not only in Germany but as regards the imports from many other countries, there is a subsidy which is sufficient to nullify the import duties, and that the dumping which takes place is very harmful to the industries of this country?

Mr. Stanley: I agree that the situation wants continual watching, but I should not like the impression to get abroad from questions of this kind that there has been a sudden and alarming increase of German imports into this country. As a matter of fact, German imports in the first quarter of this year show a substantial decrease on that of the preceding quarter.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now received information as to the subsidy paid on the export of Opel motor cars from Germany to this country?

Mr. Stanley: Inquiries are in progress, but I regret I am not yet in a position to make a statement. In the meantime, General Motors, Limited, the importers of the Opel cars, have informed me that the statistics of imports during the early months of this year give a false impression of the sales of their cars. These sales are smaller this year than last; and the imports in the early months of the year are intended to cover sales for some time ahead and to allow for re-exports. I may add that only 13 cars were imported from Germany in April.

Mr. Strauss: Will the Minister bear in mind, in pursuing this investigation further, that the export subsidy on Opel motor cars and other cars is mainly imposed in order to get more foreign currency into Germany to facilitate their armament manufactures?

Commander Locker-Lampson: Is it not very damaging to allow any subsidised articles to come in in these circumstances?

Mr. Stanley: I agree that the situation wants careful watching as do all trade matters concerning the totalitarian countries, where the system is not the same

as ours, but I am satisfied from the information I have at present that there is no reason whatever to anticipate during the year any large increase in the sale of German motor cars in this country.

Commander Locker-Lampson: But is there not a subsidy?

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that exporters of German goods to England are now permitted by the German authorities to use blocked marks in part payment in order to reduce the sterling price of the goods; and whether he will take steps to prevent the money of British nationals being thus used as a concealed subsidy to increase the import of German goods into this country?

Mr. Stanley: I understand that as a concession to United Kingdom holders of blocked marks, the German authorities have occasionally allowed part of the price of imports from Germany to be paid with these marks, but I understand that this practice is not encouraged by the German authorities, as it deprives them of free foreign exchange.

COTTON INDUSTRY.

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he has any information of the number of spindles and looms in the cotton trade the owners of which are opposed to the proposed Cotton Enabling Bill; and what percentage of the total they represent; 
(2) whether he has satisfied himself as to the method taken by the promoters of the proposed Cotton Industry Enabling Bill to ascertain the opinions of the trade; and whether he is aware that the cotton condensor spinning and weaving section, with over 10,000 employés, has not been consulted by the promoters?

Mr. Stanley: I have no exact information on the extent of agreement or disagreement by the cotton industry with the proposals for an Enabling Bill, but the Government would in any case require further information on this subject before any legislation based on the proposals was proceeded with.

Mr. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that


more accurate information will be obtained on this question before any Bill is introduced than was obtained in connection with the Cotton Spindles Bill, on which we could never get the truth?

MOLASSES.

Mr. Morgan: asked the President of the Board of Trade the total amount of molasses imported into the United Kingdom in 1937 from Empire and non-Empire resources, respectively?

Mr. Stanley: During the year 1937 the imports of molasses and invert sugar into the United Kingdom consigned from British countries amounted to 2,063,000 cwts. and from foreign countries to 7,797,000 cwts.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

TANKERS (MOLASSES AND PETROLEUM TRANSPORT).

Mr. Morgan: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of tankers registered under the British flag engaged in the transport of molasses and oil, respectively?

Mr. Stanley: The number of steam and motor oil tankers of 1,000 tons gross and over registered under the British flag, as recorded in the 1937–38 edition of Lloyd's Register Book, is 454. Of this number, 21 are shown in the register book as carrying molasses or petroleum in bulk.

SEA POLLUTION BY OIL (SEPARATORS).

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action has been taken relative to the recommendation of the League of Nations that the Government should suggest to all shipowners that separators, for the purpose of preventing the pollution of water by oil from ships in the rivers and coastal waters, should be fitted to all new ships; and what has been the result of same?

Mr. Stanley: As explained in the reply given on 17th February by my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the hon. and gallant Member for Howdenshire (Major Carver), it has not yet been possible for the League of Nations to convene an International Conference to deal with the draft recommendations and Convention prepared by the Committee of Experts appointed by the League to consider the question of the pollution of the sea by oil.

Mr. Day: Has the right hon. Gentleman any knowledge of what the chief maritime countries are doing?

Mr. Stanley: It is owing to the failure of some of the chief maritime nations to agree to this meeting that it has not yet been arranged.

Mr. Grenfell: In view of the fact that we still possess the largest maritime fleet in the world, could not the right hon. Gentleman recommend that our ships should be fitted with these separators and impose heavy penalties on foreign vessels which discharge oil around our shores?

Mr. Stanley: As this matter is dealt with by the League of Nations in an international convention, I consider that it is best to proceed on those lines.

Mr. Grenfell: But has not the right hon. Gentleman in the last few days heard of the immense damage done around our shores by the discharge of oil from these vessels?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, but that cannot be stopped without the co-operation of the maritime nations, and it is that co-operation which the League of Nations is trying to get through this committee.

COASTING VESSELS (SEAMEN'S CONDITIONS).

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that seamen employed on small coasting vessels are working as many as 90 hours per week; that the number of men engaged is below requirements; that this undermanning is unfair to those ship owners who adopt reasonable manning scales; and whether he can take action in the matter?

Mr. Stanley: Hours of work on board ship are primarily a matter for the National Maritime Board who, I am informed, have the question of hours in the coasting trade under consideration.

Mr. Shinwell: But are not the National Maritime Board in a helpless and hopeless position as regards the small coastal owners who refuse to comply with the conditions laid down?

Mr. Stanley: That is not my information.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware


that foreign-owned coasting vessels trading between British ports employ seamen at lower wages and working on less favourable conditions that is customary on British vessels; and whether he contemplates taking action to bring this unfair competition to an end?

Mr. Stanley: Sufficient information is not available for the purpose of a detailed comparison of wages and working conditions on British and foreign vessels respectively in the coasting trade of the United Kingdom. The shipping industry is at present considering this question, and I should prefer to await the results of that consideration before deciding whether any action on the part of the Government is necessary or possible. I should add that such information as is at present available does not suggest any marked disparity between wages and working conditions generally on British and foreign coasting vessels.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the seamen's representatives made a claim on the National Maritime Board for improved conditions and that the response was that they could not comply because of the unfair competition of foreign coasting vessels. Will he not, therefore, consider some form of licensing system under conditions laid down by the Board of Trade?

Mr. Stanley: I think we had better await the result of the inquiry to ascertain the facts of the case.

PASSENGER STEAMERS, AUSTRALIA SERVICE.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, as the average length of a voyage by passenger steamer at present between British ports and Sydney, New South Wales, is five weeks and that there has been no reduction in this for the last 30 years, he will take steps, in consultation with the shipping companies concerned, to expedite this voyage?

Mr. Stanley: The speed of the shipping service provided is a matter for the shipping companies concerned, to whom the statements in my hon. Friend's question have been referred. I am informed that they have this question of speed in mind, and have in recent years built ships which are capable of maintaining a higher

speed, but the replacement of their fleets is not complete and will still take time.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Could not the right hon. Gentleman take this matter up with the British shipping companies in order to see if something can be done to reduce the inordinate length of the voyage between this country and Australia, which is at present quite unreasonable?

Mr. Stanley: I have brought this question to the notice of the shipping companies. The hon. Member will realise that you cannot consider speed without at the same time considering expense. The speeding up of these vessels will entail an increase in expenditure without, perhaps, adequate advantages.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY.

ANTI-AIRCRAFT UNITS.

Captain Sir Derrick Gunston: asked the Secretary of State for War whether any further battalions of Territorial infantry are to be converted to an antiaircraft role?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Yes, Sir. Four infantry battalions have accepted an invitation to assume an anti-aircraft searchlight role this autumn, namely, 4th/5th (Queen's Edinburgh) Battalion The Royal Scots; 5th Battalion The Royal Northumberland Fusiliers (Walker-on-Tyne); 5th Battalion The Durham Light Infantry (Stockton-on-Tees); 5th/8th Battalion The Cameronians (Glasgow). These battalions will not necessarily be "converted" to another corps. They have been given the option of remaining infantry: in which case they will continue to wear their infantry uniform, bear their infantry titles, and maintain full connection with their infantry regiments: the only difference will be that they will have anti-aircraft instead of infantry equipment and they will adopt the organisation of an anti-aircraft unit.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Is it not advisable to endeavour to raise units of home service soldiers for this particular kind of work? Does my right hon. Friend realise that it reduces the striking power, and therefore the deterrent power, of British arms if he turns combatant infantry units into home defence antiaircraft units?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: That is not so. We are dealing here with the Territorial Army which, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, is liberally supplied with infantry in relation to our Regular Army and, therefore, in relation to our total requirements.

Sir H. Croft: Is it not a fact that home Territorial units could go overseas in case of emergency, and, therefore, is it not transforming the whole character of the Territorial Army?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: No, Sir. I am prepared to be advised by the General Staff in this matter as to the proper balance to maintain between various arms. The totals are not affected.

Mr. Sandys: Is the equipment for these new units available?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I trust that it will be.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for War the total number of complete anti-aircraft units now established in Scotland?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: For the particulars of the anti-aircraft units already established in Scotland, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave on 29th March last to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers). On that date the strength of these units was 320 out of an establishment of 1,178. There are now very few vacancies in these units remaining to be filled. In addition to the foregoing, authority has quite recently been given for the raising of an additional anti-aircraft battery by the Territorial Association for the County of Fife.

Mr. Davidson: Is it the opinion of the Minister or the General Staff that because of its geographical position, Scotland requires less defences than any other part of the country?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I hope the hon. Gentleman will notice the answer which I gave to-day which shows that the antiaircraft defences of Scotland are to be increased.

Major Whiteley: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there are large numbers of ex-soldiers and others over the present military age who are desirous of taking an active part in the defence scheme of the country and

who are well able to serve anti-aircraft guns; and whether he will consider forming anti-aircraft batteries for local defence, to be manned mainly by men too old for service in the Territorial Army?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: It is for the reason given in this question that the age for enlistment into Regular anti-aircraft units was raised to 35 years. For the antiaircraft units of the Territorial Army, 50 per cent. of the establishment of any unit can be enlisted up to the age of 50 and serve until 54. This gives ex-service men considerable opportunity to enlist in such units.

Major Whiteley: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider forming units for definite local defence and not for foreign service if necessary; and will he also consider allowing a larger proportion than 50 per cent. of the personnel to enlist up to the age of 50?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Clearly, if we could fill these units with men under 50, and fill them without difficulty, it would be a mistake to raise the quota over 50 per cent. I would rather proceed in the opposite direction. Obviously, it is better to have the younger men if they are obtainable.

Major Whiteley: Cannot more active employment be found for the younger men?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

WILLINGDON COMMITTEE (REPORT).

Colonel Sandeman Allen: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he proposes to publish the Willingdon Report on the promotion and training of officers?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answers which I gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley. (Mr. Lees-Smith) on 1st March.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Has the right hon. Gentleman actually implemented any of the proposals contained in that report?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: No, Sir. The proposals that I have put into operation have been quite independent of the report, and the proposals that I have to make may supplement any recommendations that may have been made.

MEAT SUPPLY.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for War what was the amount of money expended for the 12 months ended at the last convenient date for the purchase of frozen meat for the Army and Air Force at home; and what would be the extra cost of supplying home-killed meat to the Services in lieu of same?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: During the year 1937–38, approximately 31,685,000 lbs. of frozen meat, at least 99 per cent. of which was of Dominion origin, were purchased for approximately £536,000. The extra cost, apart from additional charges arising from storage, handling and inspection, of supplying the same quantity of home-killed meat would be about £439,000.

Mr. Day: Does the Minister agree that the health of the troops might be improved by using British fresh meat instead of imported meat?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not think the health of the troops could be improved.

MARRIED SOLDIERS.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War how many married men have been enlisted since such enlistment was permitted?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: 156, up to the end of April, 1938.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War how many of the married men enlisted are over 26 years of age, and therefore entitled to married allow ances for wife and children?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: 97 of the married men enlisted were over 26 years of age on enlistment.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War the total charge to Army Estimates of the married men over 26 years of age who are in receipt of married allowances, as compared with the charge to Army Estimates of a similar number of men unmarried?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The cost of an individual married soldier varies in accordance with his rank and the size of his family, and as, in addition to family allowance, he is entitled to free conveyance and disturbance allowance, free medical attendance, and rations and

colonial allowance when abroad, on account of his family, it is impossible to state at any given time the exact cost of the number of such men, compared with the cost of a similar number of single men.

Sir A. Knox: Will the right hon. Gentleman state approximately what is the extra cost? Is not the cost of these married men about double what it is for single men, and are not single men much more efficient for the purposes of the Army?

TROOPING OF THE COLOUR.

Captain Sir William Brass: asked the Secretary of State for War how many tickets for stands to view the trooping of the colour are allotted to Members of Parliament, and how many applications are usually received?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: One hundred tickets out of the limited number at the disposal of my Department are sent to Mr. Speaker, and 100 are sent to another place. I understand that they are allotted by ballot, as the number of applications exceeds the number of tickets available.

Sir W. Brass: In view of the few tickets that are available to Members of Parliament out of the number of applications, and in view of the general popularity of this event, will my right hon. Friend consider having some more stands put up in order that more people may see this event?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I should be most glad to entertain my hon. Friend's suggestion if it were at all possible to satisfy the number of applicants. I will do my best to assist towards that end.

ANTI-AIRCRAFT UNITS.

Major Whiteley: asked the Secretary of State for War how many anti-aircraft batteries, Royal Artillery, including Territorial Army, are fully equipped with modern weapons; how many of these are armed with the latest type of 3.7-inch gun; and whether he is satisfied with the present rate of production of guns, ammunition, and searchlights?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Every searchlight unit has its full training quota of searchlights available. Every artillery unit, intended to be so equipped, similarly has its


quota of 3-inch guns. The delivery of 3.7-inch guns is ahead of schedule. Appropriate units will be gradually reinforced with these. Ammunition deliveries generally are ahead of schedule.

Major Whiteley: What proportion of these units would be available immediately on a war footing in case of emergency?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: All these units would be available in case of emergency.

Major Whiteley: On a war footing?

Mr. Sandys: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer apply also to instruments such as height finders?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: My answer naturally applies only to what has been asked in the question. If my hon. Friend wishes to ask me any further questions I shall be prepared to give him a considered and accurate answer.

Mr. Sandys: Surely my right hon. Friend must imply by modern equipment and weapons, the necessary instruments as well?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I think the answer covers everything in the question.

IMPERIAL TELEGRAPHS BILL.

Mr. Joel: asked the Prime Minister when it is expected that the text of the new agreement with Cable and Wireless, Limited, will be issued; and what are the arrangements for its discussion by the House?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): The Imperial Telegraphs Bill has been presented and copies are now available to hon. Members. I hope that the Second Reading will be moved at an early date.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now consider receiving a deputation of ex-service men to represent the unredressed hardships suffered as the result of war wounds whose effect is now making itself felt?

Sir J. Simon: The procedure in operation under the Ministry of Pensions pro-

vides, I understand, for immediate attention and treatment being given to every case of a war wound, and for the award of any compensation found to be proper to the case. Any representations that it may be desired to make would be more appropriately addressed to the Minister of Pensions.

BRAZIL (EXTERNAL DEBT).

Mr. Maxwell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present position with regard to the total suspension by Brazil of her debt service; and whether His Majesty's Government propose taking further action in the matter?

Sir J. Simon: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Chapman) on Tuesday last.

Mr. Maxwell: Are the Government taking any steps to consult in this matter with the Government of the United States, which I believe is equally interested?

Sir J. Simon: I should not like to answer that in reply to a Supplementary Question. I will make inquiries and let my hon. Friend know.

Mr. G. Griffiths: If the Chancellor consulted the United States, might they not say, "You pay us first"?

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYES (PENSIONS).

Captain Plugge: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the present position with regard to the recommendation which was contained in the report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service that an inquiry should be set up to consider the desirability of establishing a contributory pension scheme for all Government industrial employés; and whether more rapid progress can now be made in this matter?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace): The matter is under consideration, but it is one of some complexity in view of the many different classes of employés involved and the number of Departments which are concerned; and I am afraid that I am not yet able to make any further statement on the subject.

FOODSTUFFS (CUSTOMS DUTIES).

Mr. G. Griffiths: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the estimated amount, for the year ending 31st March, 1939, of Customs Duties to be collected on foodstuffs, including feeding-stuffs for animals, and tea, coffee, and cocoa?

Captain Wallace: I regret that the information is not available.

PROPERTY SOCIETIES (RETURNS).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the decision given by the Marlborough Street magistrate in the case of the English and Scottish Co-operative Property Mortgage and Investment Society, Limited, resulting in this society being convicted of rendering an inaccurate return to the Registrar of Friendly Societies; and whether it is proposed to institute proceedings in the case of other property societies who have disclosed similar transactions in their published accounts?

Captain Wallace: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As I understand that the society has made a formal request to the magistrate to state a case for the opinion of the High Court the matter is still sub judice and no statement can at present be made in reply to the last part of the question.

GWYDYR FOREST (FIRE).

Mr. Parker: asked the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, the area damaged and the value of the trees destroyed in the recent fire at Gwydyr Forest, North Wales?

Colonel Sir George Courthope (Forestry Commissioner): In the recent fire at Gwydyr Forest approximately 500 acres were involved. The damage cannot be assessed until completion of the survey of the area, but it may be in the neighbourhood of £10,500.

Major Owen: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, assure, us that this forest will be replanted with as little delay as possible?

Sir G. Courthope: Both the forests destroyed by fire will be replanted as soon as possible.

Mr. Thorne: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman any information as to how the fire started?

Sir G. Courthope: I should like notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION.

IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LIMITED (CHAIRMAN).

Mr. Perkins: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is yet in a position to announce the new full-time chairman of Imperial Airways, Limited?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): I can give no further information beyond that given to my hon. Friend on 10th May, except to repeat that both the Government and the company wish to get this matter settled as soon as a suitable person is willing to accept the position when offered. I would like to inform my hon. Friend that some steps have already been taken in this connection but without success, owing to the fact that the person considered suitable for this highly responsible position regretfully felt himself unable to accept the appointment.

ENSIGN AIR LINERS.

Mr. Perkins: asked the Secretary of State for Air when it is hoped that the majority of the Ensign air liners ordered by Imperial Airways, Limited, will be delivered?

Captain Balfour: I regret that it is not yet possible to give a definite forecast, but the first Ensign is now undergoing a certificate of airworthiness tests at Martlesham. These should be completed in approximately three weeks unless the need for modifications is revealed during test. If these tests on the first Ensign are satisfactory, the second should be available early in June, and subsequent aircraft should follow at intervals of not less than six weeks.

EUROPEAN SERVICES (BUDAPEST).

Mr. Perkins: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether it is proposed to run a British service to Budapest; and, if so, whether any subsidy will be paid and to which company?

Captain Balfour: A British service to Budapest is included in the programme of European services and will be undertaken as soon as practicable, but owing to lack of suitable British equipment it will not be possible for British Airways, who have been invited to submit proposals for this service as part of their general plan, to commence operation during this year.

UNEMPLOYMENT (DURHAM COUNTY).

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons in Durham County who have received training at training centres and the number placed in employment each year since 1935?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) on Thursday last of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who received unemployment allowances in transitional payments in Durham County during 1936 and 1937 and the amount paid each year?

Mr. Brown: I am having the available information extracted, and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

INDUSTRIAL FATIGUE.

Mr. Morgan: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the fact that the production in certain factories in this country has been increased by a proportion varying from 3 per cent. to 25 per cent. following the installation of wireless sound-amplifying equipment; and whether any steps have been taken by his Department to review this matter in the interests of the welfare of labour generally.

Mr. E. Brown: I am aware of the published results of the inquiry made by the Industrial Health Research Board into the question of fatigue and boredom in repetitive work, but I am not aware that any assistance in this matter is desired from my Department.

SEASONAL WORKERS.

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Minister of Health what local authorities have adopted the model by-laws issued by his Department for securing decent accommodation for hop-pickers and seasonal workers under the Public Health Act, 1936, Section 270?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): As the answer contains a list of local authorities, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

New by-laws on this model have been confirmed in the cases of the following local authorities and are now effective:
Bromyard Rural District Council.
Chislehurst and Sidcup Urban District Council.
Dore and Bredwardine Rural District Council.
Evesham Rural District Council.
Hereford Rural District Council.
Hollingbourn Rural District Council.
Ledbury Rural District Council.
Leominster and Wigmore Rural District Council.
Malling Rural District Council.
Martley Rural District Council.
Orpington Urban District Council.
Upton-on-Severn Rural District Council.
Weobley Rural District Council.

The question of making such by-laws is still under consideration by a number of other local authorities.

OFFICES REGULATION.

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: asked the Minister of Health whether he has any information as to the plans of local authorities to exercise their powers under the Public Health Act, 1936, in respect of the conditions of offices in their areas?

Mr. Bernays: My right hon. Friend has no reason to doubt that local authorities are carrying out their duties in this respect. He proposes to call for reports from them at the end of the year.

UNDERGROUND RAILWAY ACCIDENT.

Mr. Attlee (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Transport whether he can


make any statement on the accident which occurred on the underground railway at Charing Cross this morning?

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): Yes, Sir. I regret to inform the House that shortly before 10 a.m. to-day an Inner Circle train on the District Line ran into the rear of a stationary Barking train on the east-bound road between Charing Cross and Temple stations, at a point slightly nearer the latter, with the result that the last coach but one of the Barking train was seriously damaged. The cause of the collision is not yet known and is now under investigation. It is with the deepest regret that I have to state that, so far as is at present known, five passengers were killed or have since died and 29 passengers are detained in hospital injured, some of them seriously. Accompanied by the Parliamentary Secretary and my officials, I have visited the scene of the accident and I have appointed one of my inspecting officers of railways to hold an inquiry. The House will join with me in expressing the deep sympathy we must all feel with those affected by the accident.

Sir William Davison: Arising out of that statement by the Minister of Transport as to this deplorable accident, may I ask him to consider whether the recent policy of the Transport Board, in speeding up both trains and omnibuses, may not have been carried to excess, thus placing an undue strain upon those who are operating these services?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make any statement with regard to business?

Sir J. Simon: I have to inform the House that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister regrets that he will not be well enough to be in his place on Thursday. The Debate on the Motion of the Leader of the Opposition with regard to Air Defences which was announced for that day, will be postponed. The Debate will probably take place next week, but a further statement will be made later. On Thursday we propose to take the Second Reading of the Herring Industry Bill and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution. If there is time,

we shall take the remaining stages of the Patents, Etc. (International Conventions) Bill [Lords].

Mr. Attlee: May I ask when the Money Resolution in connection with the Herring Industry Bill will be on the Order Paper?

Sir J. Simon: It will appear on the Order Paper to-morrow.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Who will take the Prime Minister's place during the right hon. Gentleman's indisposition in dealing with Foreign Office questions?

Sir J. Simon: The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Benn: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the end of February, the Prime Minister gave us a most specific promise that he would be good enough to be present and to deal with all matters of importance arising out of foreign affairs? In those circumstances, is it not natural for the Deputy-Leader of the House or some other Minister of Cabinet rank to undertake that duty?

Sir J. Simon: I hardly think that when the Prime Minister gave that undertaking to the House, he was understood to undertake also never to be absent on any occasion through indisposition.

Mr. Benn: May I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker? You will remember that when this question was raised the same opinion was expressed in different quarters of the House as to the importance of having an authoritative spokesman to deal with foreign affairs. We all regret, of course, the absence of the Prime Minister, but, at the same time, may I ask you, Sir, whether that pledge can be fulfilled, if an Under-Secretary is left in charge, and whether it does not fall to the acting Leader of the House to take the place of the Prime Minister in those circumstances?

Mr. Speaker: It is the case, certainly, that when a Minister and Under-Secretary are both in this House, the Under-Secretary invariably answers questions in the absence of the Minister, and I presume that that would apply in this case. I hope, however, that it will not be long before the Prime Minister is back in his place.

Mr. Attlee: May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that in matters of foreign affairs it is difficult in the present situation to


get an authoritative answer from the Under-Secretary, who has no responsibility for policy, and that the Prime Minister gave his assurance in response to a number of complaints about the Foreign Secretary being in another place? There is, therefore, a strong case that there should be someone responsible on the Treasury Bench. Too often in this House we are left with only Under-Secretaries on the Front Bench with no Ministers with them at all.

Mr. Speaker: That is outside my province.

Mr. Benn: May I ask the Chancellor what is his reason for refusing to come up and face Foreign Office questions?

Sir W. Davison: Would it not be exactly the same position if the Foreign Secretary were in this House and were indisposed?

Sir A. Knox: Are not all these questions put because the Under-Secretary has proved himself as efficient as any Cabinet Minister?

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Eire (Confirmation of Agreements) Bill, without Amendment.

Blackpool Improvement Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Conveyancing Amendment (Scotland) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for the regulation of certain roads on the West Thurrock Estate in the county of Essex; and for other purposes." [West Thurrock Estate Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the River Wear Commissioners to execute works; to alter the constitution of those Commissioners; and for other purposes." [Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Lord Mayor Aldermen and Citizens of the city of Nottingham and county of the same city to construct street works and waterworks and to purchase lands compulsorily for those and other

purposes; to extend the Corporation's limits for the supply of water; and to confer further powers upon the Corporation with regard to streets buildings sewers and drains and the health and good government of the city; and for other purposes." [Nottingham Corporation Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the borough of Stockton-on-Tees to acquire and develop lands and to construct railways; and to confer upon the Corporation further powers with regard to their electricity undertaking and the health good government and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes." [Stockton-on-Tees Corporation Bill [Lords.]

WEST THURROCK ESTATE BILL [Lords].

WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL [Lords].

NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

STOCKTON-ON-TEES CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

OSSETT CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Chapman; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Douglas Thomson.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Fire Brigades Bill): the Lord Advocate; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Anstruther-Gray.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[6TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1938 [Progress].

CLASS V.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
 That a sum, not exceeding £14,837,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Labour, including sums payable by the Exchequer to the Unemployment Fund, grants to local authorities, associations and other bodies in respect of unemployment insurance, Employment Exchange and other services; grant in aid of the National Council of Social Service; expenses of transfer and resettlement; expenses of training of unemployed persons and, on behalf of the Army Council and Air Council, of soldiers and airmen for employment; contribution towards the expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); expenses of the Industrial Court; and sundry services'." — [Note.—£9,750,000 has been voted on account.]

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: Before the Parliamentary Secretary opens his statement, may I put a question as to the conduct of the Debate? There are really two Votes on this Estimate—one for the Ministry of Labour and one for the Unemployment Assistance Board. In view of that, may I ask you, Captain Bourne, if you will allow a wide Debate?

The Deputy-Chairman: I think it will probably be for the convenience of the Committee if we followed the practice of last year and permitted a wide Debate covering both these Votes. In that case it will be necessary for the hon. Gentleman not to move a reduction until the end of the Debate, for if he moves it earlier he will limit the Debate to the Vote to which he has moved the reduction.

3.54 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): I am very glad that an opportunity has arisen for a discussion of this kind on the year's working of the Ministry of Labour. I appreciate that the Opposition are par-

ticularly desirous of raising one or two aspects of the work of the Ministry and of the Unemployment Assistance Board. During the course of my speech I will deal with some of the doubts and difficulties in their minds, but I should also like to take the opportunity to make references to other activities of the Ministry of Labour which, I think, ought not to go entirely without comment at this time of the Parliamentary year. May I say at the start how glad I am, coming as I do, new to the work as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, that I am to be followed in this Debate by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), whose distinguished tenure of the post that it is now my privilege to fill is well known inside and outside the House, whose portrait looks down upon me behind the desk which I occupy at the Ministry of Labour to remind me every day of the possibility of the dangers and pitfalls into which I may stray, and whose books provide a liberal education in those human problems with which the Ministry is concerned to all who are wise enough to read them.
I was in Scotland last week on the work of the Ministry of Labour and in Lancashire the week before last, and I have been in the course of the last few months to a number of centres where the Ministry's work is carried out. I think that the hon. Member who is to follow me will agree with me when I say that wherever one goes, whoever the Parliamentary Secretary may be and to whichever party he may belong, one finds widespread approval of the work done by local officials of the Ministry and a respect for the human considerations which they recognise must operate in their day-to-day work. I found from representatives of employers and workers alike a deep appreciation of the services that are rendered with the minimum of criticism, showing the service which is rendered by the Ministry of Labour to be a very human service indeed. Everybody will agree that this work and the human side of it are facilitated by the large army of voluntary workers who give their services readily in making the smooth discharge of the Ministry's work possible.
There are, I believe, some 20,000 men and women who serve voluntarily on local employment committees, juvenile advisory committees, Unemployment


Assistance Board advisory committees, and as unpaid members of the courts of referees and appeal tribunals. I think it very desirable that on an occasion of this kind they should realise how grateful all parties of the House are for the public spirit they show. They provide an admirable liaison between the central administration and local conditions and opinions. Their knowledge of local industry is invaluable, not least in two aspects of the Ministry's work to which later I would like to make reference. When one considers that last year through Employment Exchanges alone over 2,500,000 men and women were placed in employment, one can realise how important it is that people with knowledge of local industry and conditions should be available to advise the officers of the Ministry. When one realises also, taking the juvenile work, that last year some 700,000 children left school and 600,000 at least immediately competed in the labour market, one can appreciate how important the work of the juvenile advisory committees is in seeing that young people starting on an industrial life choose the right career.
I shall hope a little later to deal with various aspects of the Ministry's work, but at the moment I should like to deal in particular with one or two problems which I know are disturbing the minds of hon. Members opposite. May I say with what gratification everybody will have noticed the latest unemployment figures for the Special Areas? Comparing April, 1938, with April, 1937, there has been a decrease of some 12,000 people unemployed. since the end of 1934, when the Special Areas legislation was first passed, the decline is roughly 150,000 in the number of people out of work in the Special Areas. Complacency would most certainly be out of place, and I would not suggest to the Committee, least of all to those Members who represent districts which are hard hit enough to be classified as Special Areas, that the improvement is so considerable that no further effort is required. Special attention should be drawn to that decline, however, because it is often passed over without comment and it is a significant illustration of the advantage of the practical help which has been brought to the needs of those areas by special legislation.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: May I ask to what the decrease in the figures is due? Is it due to an increase of employment in the Special Areas or to transfers?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall deal later with the question of transference. Of course it has played some part, but the most substantial part of the improvement is due to a revival of industries in those areas, with which all hon. Members are fully conversant. In regard to the problem which is sometimes called the hard core of unemployment, the men and women who have been out of work for 12 months or more, there is also an advance and a significant advance to be recorded. Once more here I recognise that a very real problem remains, and this Debate will serve a useful purpose if attention is concentrated on the needs of people in that group for consideration. Taking April of this year, however, and comparing it with April of last year there has been a decline of some 42,000 people out of work in the category of men and women out of work for 12 months or more, and whereas last year their unemployment represented 25 per cent. of all the men and women on the total live register, at the present time it represents 17 per cent. I am not anxious so to analyse the unemployment figures as to give what would be the wrong impression that no problem remains, but none the less I think that that is a significant decrease and one to which attention should be drawn.
I understand that the hon. Member who is to follow me will pay particular attention to the question of the allowances given by the Unemployment Assistance Board and the question of the recent withdrawal of allowances that were given last October because of the combination of an increase in the cost of certain commodities and the coming of the winter months. I am sure the Committee will realise that the scales of the Unemployment Assistance Board should not be judged solely by the scales of the Regulations, but should be judged also in the light of the very wide discretion that is given to the officers of the Board. A sample, of which I imagine that most hon. Members have knowledge, was taken in December last of some 570,000 persons who were receiving allowances through the Board. It was found that 190,000 of them were in receipt of discretionary allowances exclusive of the


specific extra allowances for winter and the increased cost of living; that 46,000 of these also had a winter allowance; that 184,000 others, different people, had special winter and increased cost of living allowances. Those figures do not include the discretionary additions on account of rent above the standard in household cases, and, of course, that makes the picture even better from the point of view of the standard of living of the people receiving these discretionary allowances.
In regard to the winter allowances, which I imagine hon. Members on all sides of the Committee would like me to deal with, I would refer to a statement made first of all in this House by my right hon. Friend towards the end of October last year. He announced that because of changes in the price of certain commodities and the coming of winter the Board were about to issue a circular drawing the attention of local officers to these facts and authorising them to use discretion in granting extra allowances. At the time of this announcement to the House the cost of living figure was 158. The cost of food only was 143. As a result of the extra discretionary allowances that were given under this heading some 260,000 people out of 592,000 applicants for assistance were recently receiving this extra allowance.

Mr. S. O. Davies: In one case the hon. Member spoke of "applicants," and in the other case of "people." Does he draw any distinction between the two words or are they synonymous?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am applying these terms to precisely the same group of people. Now that the winter is happily over and at the same time the cost of living has shown a decline the Board has no longer got legal power to do what it has been doing. I should be glad to deal with that point when I give the very brief graph showing the rise and fall. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) suggested that there has recently been a rise again in the cost of living, and of course he is right in drawing attention to it, for nothing is gained by shirking the facts. The cost of living when the Board's circular was first issued was 158. It rose in January of this year to 159, in February it was 157, in March 156, in April, 154, and this month unhappily it has risen again to 156. That,

of course, can be explained in some detail, but I shall not weary the House with explanations of the rise unless I am asked to do so. The cost of foodstuffs only, which was 45 above pre-war in January of this year, is now, in May, 39 above that level. The position is that the Board in the exercise of the discretionary powers given them by Parliament have no legal right to continue an allowance that was expressly given because of the combination of those two circumstances, the coming of winter and the rise in the cost of living.
The Minister has announced to the House that the Board have under consideration a new Regulation which will give them power to make an appropriate increase during winter months in future —specific power of such a nature that they will not be forced to ask Parliamentary authority if they find they wish to exercise the power. I believe that those people who rightly realise that the burden on unemployed homes is substantially higher in the winter than in the summer will be glad that the Board is to be equipped with this power. As for the actual increase, the average has been about 2s., and instructions have been issued that when these extra allowances are removed, they should be removed in two halves if 2s. or over was being given, and that if under 2s. was being given they should be withdrawn in one amount after a week's notice.

Mr. Graham White: Should not cases be reviewed on their merits? The Board has an over-riding duty to see that needs are met?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall come to that point. It cannot be stressed too often, as the hon. Member has reminded the Committee, that the Board has over-riding discretion, apart from the specific winter allowance, a discretion which, as I have shown in quoting the samples I have given, is very freely exercised. It is interesting to compare these winter allowances and the method of their withdrawal with the winter allowances that are given by a number of local authorities, all of which allowances, with one exception, are withdrawn by the end of April. The exception for some reason is the Burgh of Dunfermline, and their allowance is being withdrawn to-day, 17th May. Some 19 local authorities in the course of this last


winter have given these winter allowances, and I think that the allowances given by the Board for this combination of two circumstances compare very favourably indeed with the allowances given by those 19 local authorities. I would particularly draw attention to the fact that in the case of the London County Council, though it is true there has been an upward movement in certain specific cases, there has been no increase whatever because of the increased cost of living.
It may interest the Committee to compare the average weekly payments made by the Board in April, 1938, allowing for these various discretions, with the average weekly payments made over the corresponding period during the last two years. In April, 1938, some 555,000 people were receiving an average of 24s. 5d. a week. In May last year the average weekly payment was 23s. 11d.; and in May, 1936, 23s.7d., so that there is an appreciable increase in the average weekly allowance that is being paid. I hope that I have sufficiently opened up discussion on the two subjects on which I know hon. Members want to speak to provide a beginning to the Debate, even though there is little doubt that if I had ignored the subject altogether a debate would none the less have occurred.
I think it is very important to draw attention, as so infrequently can be done, to some of the really constructive work done by the Ministry in the course of the last 12 months. In order not to confuse the Committee too much I would deal with the subject under the two headings of placings of adults and the problem of juvenile unemployment. Nothing has impressed me more in the very brief time that I have held my present office, and on the journeys and visits I have been lucky enough to pay, than the discovery of what an important part the exchanges play in placing men in employment. Alike from the point of view of the State, which is naturally concerned that the right man should fill the right job, from the point of view of the man, the applicant for work, who does not want a fruitless and disheartening journey to the wrong factory or workshop, and from the point of view of the employer, who wants to fill a vacancy with the right person as quickly as possible, placing is of preeminent importance, and in this matter

the exchanges have played a very helpful part.
Moreover, because of the co-ordination between the different exchanges, they are in a position to place, as last year they did, some 500,000 people outside the areas where they are registered. Co-ordination between the different exchanges, and the knowledge of seasonal demands in different areas that each exchange possesses, render them able to fill vacancies not only in their own areas but outside. Last year some 3,140,000 vacancies were notified to the Employment Exchanges and some 2,625,000 vacancies were filled. I think that the attention of employers and employed alike should be drawn to the facilities that the exchanges give, in the hope that an ever-growing proportion of people who want work and of those who want people to work, may be assisted by the exchanges. Last year the exchanges did find difficulty in dealing with a number of applications for skilled engineers, hotel and restaurant workers and domestic servants. Attention cannot be directed to that fact too much.
If hon. Members are anxious to know what proportion of the vacancies filled are now filled by the exchanges, they may be interested to hear that of the total number of men and women registered last year as totally unemployed who found work, 29 per cent. found work through the Employment Exchanges. Certain employers patronise the exchanges more considerably than others. Indeed of the wholly unemployed who got jobs under local authorities last year, some 60 per cent. secured their jobs through the exchanges; and in the case of the hotel and catering industries nearly 40 per cent. secured their jobs in that way. In the course of last year the registered list of classified occupations has been brought up to date and amplified, and there is every hope that in the month ahead still more successful placings will be made. Of course, when I said just now that 500,000 people had been placed outside the areas where they were registered for unemployment, at once the question of transfer was raised, not necessarily but possibly. In the course of last year some 17,500 men were transferred from the scheduled depressed areas through the agency of the exchanges, and some 6,500 women. Some 14,000 juveniles were also transferred.

Mr. George Hall: Was that from the Special Areas?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A very good proportion were from the Special Areas. I hope I have said enough to impress on the Committee the work that is done through the exchanges in regard to placings. On the subject of juvenile unemployment there are very wide and striking variations, taking the United Kingdom as a whole, very largely due to geographical considerations. There were recently some 26,000 juveniles out of work still in the Special Areas. There are some 97,000 juveniles unemployed, taking the March returns for the country as a whole. Three-quarters of that too large army are to be found in the North East of England and the industrial parts of Wales and in those parts of Scotland where depression still persists. Taking London, the South Coast and the bulk of the Midland areas there is frequently an unsatisfied demand for juvenile labour.
I would not say the problem of juvenile unemployment is only a question of transference, but it is largely a question of transference, and I think nothing but harm is done to people who are out of work and who are anxious for work to have the suggestion made that transference can play no part in their economic and if necessary their physical recovery. After all, the changing face of England over the last 100 years is living evidence of the part that transference has played in the past. Taking 1934 as the year when a start was made in regard to juvenile transference, the figures of juveniles who have been transferred through the agencies of the Ministry show a considerable increase. Some 5,000 were transferred in 1934, the figure was doubled to 10,000 in 1935, and there was another increase to 15,000 in 1936. Last year showed a small decline to about 14,000, or a little over, and the reason for that is, I think, mainly the fact that there has been a recovery in certain of the districts whence juveniles were previously transferred which has encouraged them to seek work at home. The Ministry helps in travelling expenses and, if need be, in weekly grants, and through the various committees that are available every effort is made to see that what is naturally a wrench to nearly everybody is made as smooth as possible.
Every effort is also made to see that in the areas to which the juveniles are transferred adults already in employment there or anxious to get work are not displaced as a result of this transfer. There are certain conspicuous exceptions, but I think that some of those in more prosperous areas, not omitting altogether the local education authorities in more prosperous areas, could do more to help in this problem of the young unemployed. Some 3½ years ago a letter was sent to some 63 authorities asking them—they were all in prosperous districts—to help as much as they could, and a number have helped, but it is a significant fact that of all those transferred through the agency of local education authorities one quarter have gone to three areas alone—Birmingham, Rugby and Leicester—which have helped in a most splendid and commendable fashion. I do not propose to give the Committee information about the working of the various junior transfer centres or the vocational training schemes, except to say that in the last year they have shown an increase in the value they have rendered to the State, and the contribution made by the Ministry to such bodies as the Y.M.C.A., the Salvation Army or the Catholic Land Association has enabled much work to be achieved.
In regard to placing juveniles in work in general, I have already drawn attention to the help the Ministry have received from the juvenile advisory committees. Last year 694,000 vacancies for juveniles were notified, and through the help of the committees some 521,000 juveniles were placed in employment. This means that about 172,000 vacancies for juvenile workers were not filled by the exchanges, and this figure may well be read in the light of the fact that some 97,000 juveniles are still unemployed.
With regard to the junior instruction centres, attention has been drawn to the fact that while there are 97,000 juveniles out of work the average daily attendance last month at these centres was in the vicinity only of 22,000. I should not like the use of the word "only" to give the impression that that is a meagre achievement. I should like the opportunity to impress upon one side of the Committee, anyhow, that there is a proportion of whom obligatory attendance cannot be required. A very great number of juveniles registered as unemployed may have been out of work for only a few


days. No compulsion can be exercised upon them to go to these centres unless they have left school for four weeks, and, in addition, they must have been unemployed for six days during the course of the last three weeks. This may reduce very substantially the number of those whom the public—which does not trouble to make an over-critical analysis of the figures—think should be attending the junior instruction centres. I appreciate that only a few weeks ago we had a discussion upon unemployment insurance
and—

Mr. Bevan: Before the hon. Member leaves the question of juvenile transference, has he nothing to say about how long these boys remain in the employment to which they were transferred? What is the after-transfer history? He knows that a very important private inquiry is being conducted in this matter, and that most alarming preliminary figures have been produced. We should like to know the nature of the employment to which they are transferred, the wages, how long they remain, what are the after-care arrangements, and the like? The hon. Member cannot skate over that aspect of the matter.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have no desire to skate over it. The hon. Member will appreciate that the value of the training given in some of these centres cannot be measured only by whether or not the trainee has retained the first employment to which he goes. In every case in which training has been given it is reason able to assume that some permanent advantage has been conferred too, and where a number of them—and I do not dispute the facts, though I am not in a position to give exact figures—have left their employment and gone home—

Mr. Bevan: Home?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, home—it is frequently found that they have gone home better fitted to find a job at home, and frequently with a job in mind, as a result of the training they have undergone at the training centres.

Mr. James Griffiths: Have the Department or the Advisory Committee any evidence to show that in the large centres to which these juveniles go there is a growing practice of keeping them in employment only until they are 18, and

then to dismiss them and replace them by other juveniles? When they are 18 years of age and entitled to a higher wage they are dismissed. There is growing evidence in the depressed areas of a return of boys and girls who have been dismissed from their employment in those circumstances, and of other juniors being sent to replace them.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would not deny that in certain cases there may be evidence of juveniles being treated in that way, but I cannot accept the view that it is a growing practice. It is certainly an anti-social practice, and one to which it is advisable that attention should be drawn, in order that public opinion may be aroused and that, if necessary, other steps may be taken to prevent it. No harm can come from the suggestion being made, but I would deprecate the hon. Member giving the impression that it is such a growing practice—though he may not have done so himself other people might assume it to be the case. If I have left unsaid anything about any point with which the Committee is concerned my right hon. Friend, who will follow me, will deal with it at the close of the Debate.
Before I sit down I should like, in order that this brief survey may be relatively complete, to make some reference to the question of insurance. The House had an opportunity a few weeks ago of considering in some detail the Annual Report of the Statutory Committee, and hon. Members would not wish me to go over again ground that was adequately covered then, but I think that when giving a review of the year's work of the Ministry some attention should be drawn to the considerable increase in the number of people who are now enjoying the privileges of insurance as a result of the expansion of this scheme and to the material advantages which they now enjoy. Last year rather more than 100,000 gardeners were added to the agricultural scheme. In April of this year 50,000 private chauffeurs, and 170,000 institutional workers were included in the general scheme and 30,000 game-keepers, stablemen and others in kindred employments in the agricultural scheme.
Whereas five years ago a little over 12,500,000 people were enjoying the advantages of insurance against unemployment, the figure to-day is 15,000,000. That is a very notable increase, and one,


I think, upon which the country should be fully informed. There have at the same time been important modifications in the course of the last few months. The institution of the extra 1s. for adult dependants' benefit, and the increase in added days for good contributors mark the improvements in the industrial scheme. The reduction of the waiting period from six to three days, the drop of a halfpenny in the contribution of and in respect of persons 18 and upwards and the increase of 1s. 6d. to the weekly benefit of young persons between 18 and 21 mark the improvements in the agricultural scheme. I would not wish to give the House the impression that nothing more remains to be done, and, indeed, if nothing more did remain to be done I could not believe that my right hon. Friend would be satisfied to remain at his post.
In conclusion, I think a brief analysis should be applied to the unemployment figures, because they do give, particularly abroad, a rather one-sided picture of the state of employment in Great Britain. I do not analyse them in order to appear complacent. but to relate them to some of the methods of presenting figures adopted by other countries. It is unhappily true that on 4th April this year there were 1,748,000 people registered as unemployed, but of these 358,000 were temporarily stopped, and it is reasonable to assume that the vast proportion of those were expecting an early resumption of work. Then, 68,000 were casual workers, like dockers, who happened to be out of work on the day on which the count was taken. Also 93,000 were juveniles. Bearing in mind the still unsatisfied demands for juvenile labour in other parts of the country, their problem, apart from the problem of unemployment, is a problem of transfer. Of the 1,248,000 wholly unemployed adults, no less than 46 per cent. have been out of work for less than six weeks, and 73 per cent. for less than six months. There remains a formidable hard core. Quite apart from the existence of this hard core it must be a matter of concern to the country that so many good craftsmen anxious to resume work find a difficulty in getting a job. I am glad to have a chance to be associated with a Department the obligation of which is to join with other Government Departments and with private effort in trying to secure increased

employment for our people and to see that those who cannot, through no fault of their own, obtain work at the moment have their enforced idleness made more tolerable.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: It is usual for the Minister to open the Debate on these Estimates, but we understand that there are reasons why the right hon. Gentleman did not take that step to-day. However much we may differ from the right hon. Gentleman, nobody in the House will say that he does not stand up to his job when necessary. I should like to have followed the example of the hon. Gentleman who has opened this Debate in his very lucid statement on the handling of the Ministry's work during the year. I do not know whether he felt as cool as he looked, but I wish that I looked as cool as he looked when he was giving us those figures. I wish we could have had a Debate about the whole work of the Ministry, as we could have had had it not been for the pressure of other matters with which we wanted to deal. There is no one who knows the wide ramifications of the Ministry of Labour, with its innumerable sections and with its staff, which I venture to say has no equal in a similar Department anywhere in the world, but could wish that we could have begun to deal section by section with the various classes of work which they have to perform every year. Indeed, I myself —and I think I speak for my colleagues in this respect—can only wish that instead of having the Unemployment Assistance Board handling the unemployed, the staff of the Ministry of Labour had been doing it.
I want to remind the Committee that it is now four years since the Government took the step of separating unemployment insurance from what is now known as unemployment assistance. They removed the people responsible for the finance of Part I on the one side and for dealing with the great mass of largely long-term unemployed on the other—they removed the responsible administrative bodies from this House. I think that is the most fatal piece of legislation that has taken place in this country for many years. We argued at that time that in separating the two sections of the unemployed the Government were doing a great disservice, not only to the unemployed, but to the country, and that in removing the people


who were responsible from the direct purview and criticism of this House, they were in fact taking the unemployment problem out of the House of Commons. We can still ask the right hon. Gentleman questions, but he answers them in a mood as much as to say, "I have nothing to do with it; it is somebody else's job." We can still debate here, but there is no one who knows anything of the facts of the last two or three years but must agree that for all vital purposes we have no direct influence at all over affairs affecting the unemployed.
I must say—and I confess it not with any pleasure—that in all the years that I have been in the House of Commons I have never seen a Government or a House of Commons so little concerned about unemployment as has been the case during the past few years. There are 1,750,000 people unemployed, getting on towards 2,000,000. That is bad enough, and it is a thing that ought to disturb every serious thinking person, but I must say that I think there has been a spirit of complacency abroad which has reflected itself to some extent in the country. There was a time when this House of Commons could be really alarmed when there were 1,000,000 people unemployed, but to-day there are 1,750,000 and, what is worse, out of 1,500,000 applicants for insurance, no fewer than 1,000,000 of them are in the Northern areas and in Wales, in what are called the depressed areas; that is to say, the great burden falls upon comparatively limited areas of the country. It must be remembered too that that burden has been falling with increasing weight upon those areas for many years past.
I must say that I think the right hon. Gentleman should be congratulated on the fact that he has got out the Ministry of Labour Report a bit sooner this year than usual. I wish the Unemployment Assistance Board would take that as a model, because I think it is scandalous that we are now in the fifth month after the completion of the Unemployment Assistance Board's year, and we have not yet got their report. A great industrial revolution began in this country very shortly after the War, about 16 or 17 years ago. It really began round about 1922, but the report of the Ministry, on page 4 states:
 since 1923 the ' south ' group has grown between three and four times as fast as the

'north' group, with the result that the proportion of the country's workers aged 16–64 who are in the south has risen during this period from 45.7 per cent. to 51 per cent.
I want to direct the notice of the Committee to this remarkable statement which follows:
 The most outstanding increase was in the south-eastern area, where the insured population rose by 54 per cent.; the smallest were in Wales, with only 1.8 per cent. and the northern division with 3.2 per cent.
There has actually been a reduction of insured workers in Glamorgan and Monmouthshire since that time. What has happened has been that, with the growth of industry, round about 2,000,000 people have come into industry, as far as insured workers are concerned, since 1922, and nearly all of them have gone into the four areas—London, South-East, South-West, and the Midlands. The normal development has not taken place in Wales or in the Northern areas, and not only have normal increases not taken place—and that plays a part in the social economy of these areas—but side by side with that there has been an increasing burden of unemployment. That means that the old pre-eminence of those areas has diminished altogether. For instance, mining was the second industry in the country as far as numbers employed were concerned. I remember looking up the figures, I think it was some time last year, and I found that they were then sixth; I should not be surprised if they were now about seventh or eighth on the list. Cotton, where this business began, was one of the really big industries of the country, but it is dying to-day. Wool is being affected now, and shipbuilding, and in spite of apparent prosperity steel is diminishing, and heavy engineering.
There are about five industries that have been vitally affected by this process, and, what is worse, the effects of this kind of thing have not passed as the years have passed. These effects have left those areas loaded with debt and burdened with increasing rates. I want to draw attention to one thing in connection with these areas, which must be borne in mind, so that it can be understood. There is not much in the statement that there has been a slight reduction in the numbers of the unemployed in the Special Areas. That is nothing, in face of the calamity that has come upon those areas. These older areas were the first places set up under


the old industrial revolution, and until after the War their housing and sanitary conditions were shocking, and their social life was almost below par in some respects. It is a good thing that they had fairly high standards of communal relationship, which did redeem those social standards to some extent, but when the Minister of Health calls for the building of houses and for the abolition of slums, when he makes it appear to the country that there are to be great improvements, the greatest need is in those old areas which had such a bad start. There is there a great burden of housing and general social amelioration, as well as of the rates, and it gets worse. The burden of the rates in those areas, under the most economical administration, is becoming almost intolerable. But there is something worse than that. It has left a legacy of men, women, and children undermined physically, mentally, and to some extent spiritually.
When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the withdrawal of winter relief, we have to remember that there is longstanding deterioration and corrosion by unemployment in those areas. You only have to see the people, to talk to them, to understand what I mean. I was present a fortnight ago at the selection of scholars for the Miners' National Welfare Scholarship, and if one wants experience of the fineness of modern youth, one certainly gets it there. One fine little girl came in, and we had to ask about her home conditions and the whole lot of questions. She answered that her father was unemployed, and when she left that room every member sitting there, many from scholastic surroundings far removed from the ordinary industrial world, said almost simultaneously, "Half starved." The right hon. Gentleman has appointed an investigation committee himself, to investigate prices and certain conditions which affect the working classes. The right hon. Gentleman's own investigation is based upon a repudiation of the present system and a rise in the cost of living. I think the Unemployment Assistance Board have jumped too quickly in this business. They were too eager to show that they were saving a microscopic amount of money, in comparison with the amount it takes for their administration and the amount of the salaries that they

receive. There is not anything legally that can stop the Unemployment Assistance Board from continuing these grants. They have to meet the needs of the people. That is the overriding fact of law. We are stressing the fact that there is no legal barrier against the continuance of these grants.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I refresh the mind of the hon. Member as to what I said? I said that there was no legal power in the Board to continue allowances expressly given because of the coming of winter and the increased cost of living, and I added that the general discretion in the power of the Board to give such allowances as they think desirable is an overriding one.

Mr. Lawson: In the face of that statement I do not know why the statement should be made that there was no legal power, because one cancels out the other. What are the facts in regard to poor relief? I am not saying that this position affects only the Special Areas. There are parts of London where you get a high rate of unemployment. I have been looking up the abstract of labour statistics and trying to get the last figures for 1937. I gather from the abstract that in 1931 the number of people on the Poor Law was 276 per 10,000, and at the end of 1936 the number was 361 per 10,000, or nearly 100 more per 10,000. A great bulk of these figures comes from the Special Areas. You have also to add the effects of the Derating Act, with which I cannot deal. The Unemployment Assistance Board is responsible for the proper care of the long-term unemployed, amounting to 500,000 or 600,000. The Parliamentary Secretary said that there was a reduction last year of 42,000 in the number of people who have been out of work a year and more. That hardly keeps pace with the death rate. There are still nearly 300,000 who have been idle a year and more, and some of them have been unemployed for from five to 10 years.
By the Act of 1934 and by pledges given in speeches in this House the Unemployment Assistance Board is bound to take such steps as will enable men to get back, if possible, into the field of industry. Anyone who knows anything of what takes place in this House will remember the great hopes that were


placed by the Government, and by those who supported that special legislation, upon the part that the Board would play in getting men back into industry. The columns of such representative journals as the '' Times '' could be quoted in proof of the fact that they almost believed that the new Unemployment Assistance Board would be a method of solving the unemployment problem for the older men. Certainly that impression was given to the country. What have they done? They have done nothing. The body of long-term unemployment has been unmoved, and is apparently immovable. True, a small number have got back into industry, but many have died off, and in the main the body of this problem stands unmoved. This is at a time of industrial boom, and it is a position which ought to receive the Minister's very serious consideration.
I am sorry to say that there are very ominous signs for the future. I do not think that fact can be denied. Statistical journals, and experts who make it their business to consider these problems, business men and workmen also, tell the same story. We are in a time of industrial boom and yet there are 1,750,000 unemployed, 600,000 have been unemployed for six months and more, and 300,000 have been unemployed for a year or more. What is to become of the aims set forth in the Act? When the right hon. Gentleman answers to-day, he has to answer this fact, that the expressed reason for changing the whole unemployment insurance law and the whole method of dealing with it in the legislation of 1934 was that at last we were going to get to grips with this problem. The right hon. Gentleman ought to tell the House and the country what the Board have done.
It is sometimes asked: "What is the quality of the people who are unemployed?" Many people think that they are persons who in no case would come within the ambit of the ordinary industrial life of the nation. Failing the Unemployment Assistance Board's report for 1937 I can only fall back upon the report for 1936, and on page 5 of that report this is what the Board say:
 The generality of the Board's applicants are ordinary men and women, capable of managing their own lives and making use of their allowances to the best advantage; they are no different in character or aptitude from

the claimants to unemployment insurance benefit or the persons in employment. It is important that the Board's outlook should be firmly based upon a recognition of this fact, … A large proportion of them are, by present industrial requirements, relatively old. Forty-five per cent. of the Board's applicants between the ages of 18 and 64 are 45 years of age and over as compared with 27 per cent. of claimants to unemployment insurance benefit.…Industry will have to accustom itself to the fact that it cannot continuously find a supply of juvenile and young labour; it must be prepared to engage and retain older men.… The report for the region of Wales calls particular attention to the problems of isolated mining communities where the whole industrial life of the community has collapsed.
Those communities are made up of people who are no different from those who claim unemployment insurance benefit. Reference is made in various parts of the report to Special Areas, and they pay a tribute to the calibre and character of the men. Take the question of the young. There is a good deal of talk about training. It is quite natural in the modern method of transport that you will have people moving about more easily than in pre-war times, and it is natural that we should have a certain number of boys and girls travelling, but to organise a system where you take wholesale, boys and girls and send them distances of 200 up to 400 miles in order to subsidise employers who have deliberately refused to go to those parts where the labour is to be found, is another matter. I notice that in the evidence given by the Welsh representatives before the Royal Commission on the Geographical Distribution of the Industrial Population it is said:
 Each juvenile worker transferred from the Special Area of South Wales has cost the local ratepayers an average of about £54 to educate during his nine years in a public elementary school. If 5,000 such juveniles are transferred in a year, this represents a subsidy to English districts, or employers, of approximately £270,000 from public funds, not to speak of tie cost to the parents.
Therefore, the South Wales people are robbed of the benefit of the work of these children. The same fact was set forth in the evidence given from the Northern Area, which says:
 The losses to the area as a result of this migration are mainly of the younger people up to 35 years of age—those who are most capable of finding employment. It is obvious that difficulties must arise when an industrial region is denuded of its younger generation and left with its older insured population. The problems created are both social and economic. In Durham County especially the


result of this migration has been to leave the area with an undue percentage of the older generation, which complicates the provision of social facilities such as housing, schools, etc., and renders more difficult the work of local authorities which already are burdened more heavily than they can bear by reason of poor relief caused by unemployment. It is clear that this matter of migration and transference requires most careful investigation in order to ascertain what its ultimate effects may be upon the industrial future of the North-East.
What does that mean? It means that those who have favoured juvenile transference are now becoming very doubtful about it. What of the effect upon boys and girls of taking them away? Individually it may be all right. It was all right as an expedient for a year or two; it was the least of the evils. Now it has been going on for some dozen years, and areas have been denuded of their most virile populations. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government have any policy to meet that problem. Training is a necessary part of the ordinary industrial organisation in the ordinary way, but only a miscroscopic part. Juveniles are trained in many ways. Is this scheme the last word upon what is to be done with the juveniles? It is significant to remember that the Government's juvenile training centres have become known among boys and girls as "the dole school."

Mr. Crossley: That seems inconsistent with the after records of those who go to them.

Mr. Lawson: That is the common name given to them. Has any hon. Member noticed the difference between boys and girls who continue their education and those who go to what is called "the dole school"? I come from the county which started that scheme on a big scale and was among the first in the country. We did it enthusiastically. After close examination I must say I think that there is no other solution to this problem but to continue education at school for a year or two longer at least, and to keep the boys and girls at school under ordinary teachers until they can enter into industry. I protest against the assumption that Lancashire, Cumberland, Durham, Wales and Scotland are to continue indefinitely to send their most virile population to feed other areas and to subsidise employers. I particularly protest

against driving children from home because Ministers are mentally too lazy to face the problem of the boy in industry.
I want the Minister to answer another question. I gather that the Special Areas Act finishes at the end of March next year. There are very ominous rumours abroad about the Special Areas Act. It is said in well-informed circles that the Government do not intend to continue even that meagre instalment of legislation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us an answer on that point. If we cannot get anything else we want at least to keep the fraction of legislation that we managed, by force of public opinion, to wrest from the Government some years ago. What does it matter to the Special Areas that you have balanced your Insurance Fund. What does it matter to the 300,000 men who have been out of work for a year or more that your Insurance Fund is what you call balanced? It is no profit to those who have been out of work for years that you managed to save £8,500,000 last year on the Unemployment Assistance Board, or that you have managed to reduce or to withdraw a little in other ways.
I have pleaded in this House. I appreciate the generous words which the Parliamentary Secretary used during his speech. I have pleaded in the country for these people. In these days I ask myself what is to be the condition of this country if this state of things is allowed to go on. Here is a great cancer eating at the very vitals of the industrial and economic life of this nation. Very few men want to be idle. The other day I met a friend of mine of the old pit days. He had been idle for some time but he got work, and I noted that he was looking very well. He said he was feeling very well and he added: "I am working now." He said: "No so-and-so means test man for me." He is one of the fine type of workmen to whom the very visit of a person of less character and less ability than himself is an affront. We have built up a great organisation and duplicated it, and it costs millions, in order to chase men to get a few shillings out of them. As a matter of fact, this Unemployment Assistance Board organisation, with its overhead charges and upkeep, is costing this country millions of pounds compared with the few pounds that somebody might get away with.
I hope there will be an opportunity one day to examine this venture financially. They say that they have balanced the Unemployment Fund. When we were in office everything went into the debt, until the last six months. It has cost the Board £300,000,000 in the last few years for allowances and I am pleased that it has, but that is not balancing the Unemployment Fund. This is the greatest hoax that was ever put across the people of this country, and they know it. The idle men of this country would much sooner be working. That is understandable. We have a wonderful and virile population, of people who love their crafts and their labour. I sometimes think when I travel northwards on the railway what a wonderful thing it is that we can go along for hundreds of miles in safety, although if one rail were out of joint for half an inch it would mean disaster to everybody on the train. Everything is right because an ordinary workman does his job.
In industry after industry there are men who would sooner be working than idle, but are the Government troubled about the present situation? They are absolutely and serenely self-satisfied. They are blind to this problem and its effects upon decent men and women. They appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the distribution of population and to establish facts which were perfectly well known to every student before they began. Asked about this matter, the Prime Minister answers almost in a cynical tone. Not a tittle of evidence has been given to this new Commission that was not known to the Commission. I say to the Government: You have no plans. You have nothing but complete self-satisfaction in the face of this terrible menace to the nation. You have wasted the years. You have done nothing. If we raise the whole problem of the condition of the unemployed in discussion in this House it is not because of the right hon. Gentleman, who has made his contribution, I think, to the self-satisfaction in the matter, or because we hope that anything will be done here; but because we hope that in some way and at some time the nation will face the matter and that the people will themselves make the contribution that the Government have failed to make in connection with this terrible problem.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Crossley: On the subject of unemployment the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) always speaks with deep human sympathy for those among whom he has lived all his life. He wrote one of the most interesting books that it has ever been my experience to read on the subject of the north country. I hope he will forgive me if I found some pleasure during his speech in learning that he did appreciate the Special Areas legislation. I would make one criticism of his argument relating to the winter allowances of the Unemployment Assistance Board. Several of us fought for a long time, and were continually putting forward the view, that there should be winter allowances. It always struck me that the essential corollary would be that those allowances would be withdrawn in the summer, to be reintroduced in the following winter. That was done, and I cannot see any special reason why it should not have been done this year. There is no special remaining-up of the figure of the cost of living. In April it was down to 154 and this month it is up to 156.

Mr. Bevan: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that if the percentage of the cost of living is up in the middle of December the winter relief should be discontinued in the middle of December?

Mr. Crossley: No.

Mr. Bevan: That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman was saying.

Mr. Crossley: The cost of living has to be taken into account by the Unemployment Assistance Board, but it is highly improbable that they would at any time consider reducing the allowance in the winter. There is always a discretionary power. It is a very desirable power to have. If the cost of living rose in the summer or remained the same in the summer, hon. Gentlemen would have a case against the winter relief being withdrawn.
I wish to pass on to the general work of the Ministry of Labour, and to make a few observations and ask a few questions. It was rather amazing to me to find, in view of the fact that 2,500,000 people were placed through the Employment Exchanges, that only 29 per cent. of those engaged were in fact placed through those Exchanges, and that there


were 71 per cent. who were privately engaged otherwise than through the Exchanges. That shows the vast turnover of engagements each year. Undoubtedly, however, there has been in many districts a real shortage of labour of some kinds, in particular of engineering and building labour. It has always been— [Interruption] I can give the hon. Member an example from the Nottingham district. I can speak without the slightest hesitation, from personal experience there, of the difficulty of obtaining skilled engineering labour in the Nottingham district. With a Government gun factory in Nottingham itself, and the Rolls Royce works expanding in Derby, the difficulty of obtaining skilled engineering labour in that district is almost insuperable.

Mr. Bevan: Training camps.

Mr. Crossley: If the hon. Member wants to interrupt me, I hope he will stand up. If he does, I will consider whether I will give way to him or not.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member says that there is a shortage of engineering labour in Nottingham. We have had these general statements made over and over again, all of which have been denied by responsible officials of the union concerned. If we are to have these statements made, we are entitled to have specific evidence, and not a mere statement from an hon. Member who in the whole of his speech has revealed a complete misunderstanding of the problem he is dealing with.

Mr. George Griffiths: Mr. George Griffiths rose—

Mr. Crossley: Perhaps I may answer the one hon. Member first. I can give specific evidence of that, because I am a director of an engineering firm half-way between Nottingham and Derby, which is what we try to make model employment. We provide everything, including a pension scheme for our workpeople. We have been losing men on the Nottingham side, and we have been losing men on the Derby side. We cannot get them replaced by men with a sufficient degree of skill. We can get semi-skilled, but not completely skilled, labour.

Mr. Bevan: Is the hon. Member referring to precision workers?

Mr. Crossley: Yes, various skilled engineering workers—turners, fitters and so on. There is a real shortage at the present time. I wanted to ask the Minister of Labour very much the same sort of question which apparently was in the mind of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). One often hears from the Amalgamated Engineering Union that there are 8,000 unemployed on their books. What is the average length of the time for which these men have been unemployed, and are they fully skilled? There is at the present time a real shortage of engineering labour, and I can speak of that real shortage in the district of my own constituency, where many of the works in Trafford Park are really short of skilled engineers at the present moment. At the time when there is a shortage in some districts, and undoubtedly a great surplus of labour supply, often semi-skilled labour supply, in other districts, transfer becomes the obvious remedy. I have been immensely impressed with the extent of the work of the Ministry of Labour. They have not only seized the possibility, but have anticipated the possibility of obtaining work for men, usually from depressed areas, in other parts of the country where men are needed. They have sent them in advance of the jobs actually being taken; they have paid them special allowances during the time that they have been waiting for the jobs in the towns to which they have gone; when they have got the jobs, they have paid them special allowances until theiar families could be brought and accommodation could be found; and they have paid the cost of the families' removal, not only of the people themselves, but of the furniture.

Mr. Gallacher: They are just chattels.

Mr. Crossley: It has been a fine human service, and it has brought men out of areas in which they have had little hope into areas where they have found work, and where they can keep work. It is done on a family basis, though the hon. Member who represents the Communist party may possibly take some objection to that.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to see the factories brought where the people are.

Mr. Crossley: It is quite true that some local authorities have put forward that argument, but I do not believe they have


done any great service to the unemployed in putting it forward. It may be desirable or it may not be desirable to have national planning and compulsory location of industry, but no Member on the other side of the House can tell me that that will solve the actual problem of the unemployed in those areas for many years to come. If in the meantime you are to leave unemployed men, and not transfer them, because you are prepared to wait for some hypothetical time in the future when you have satisfactory location of industry, you are going to leave the unemployed in a very bad position, when you might have done a great deal for them by transferring them, especially when they are transferred with all the care that the Ministry of Labour is exercising at the present time. It is not an experimental service, as it was five years ago; it is now a service which supplies after-care and help in many ways, for adults as well as juveniles. I think that hon. Members opposite are doing no service to the unemployed in not encouraging the Ministry in that work.
I would like to say something about the transference of unemployed juveniles. That is a particularly human problem, because it means taking children, or little more than children, away from their parents, away from home, and placing them in another district. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street spoke with considerable feeling, with which I have every sympathy, on that point. I am not sure, however, that as a rule it does any harm to a young person to go out into the world and fend for himself. [An HON. MEMBER: "At 14? "] At 16. I am not sure that it ever has in our history. We have read about most of the great men of the past, that is what they did. I am satisfied that the Ministry of Labour are exercising the utmost care in the case of these children, except on one point, about which I want to ask a question. I am satisfied that they are in league with innumerable voluntary workers, who are exercising the utmost voluntary care when these juveniles have been found jobs in other parts of the country; and they are frequently paying allowances to the children when they are employed, in order to make up the wage, which at first may well be a low one, to a decent living wage with pocket money.
There is, however, just one point. I think that probably the Minister has no power to deal with it, but I am not absolutely satisfied that there is not some slight justification in the complaints of the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, that there are factories which turn out these juveniles when they come to be grown up and to earn a larger wage. I could give my right hon. Friend, and I will do so in private, the names of two firms which I know are doing this. I do not think that these firms should ever have the approval of the Ministry of Labour as suitable firms to which to transfer juveniles. I think it may be true, also, that the juvenile employment committees in prosperous districts do not do their utmost to help the Ministry in finding what really is suitable work, with promise of progressive advances of wages in the future. Certainly I am not satisfied that the juvenile employment committees in prosperous areas show anything like enough enthusiasm in helping the Ministry of Labour to find jobs at all for juveniles from depressed districts. Yet in the last three years it is a remarkable fact that over 40,000 juveniles have been placed by the Ministry of Labour.
I want now to say a word, which has hardly been said in this Debate hitherto, about the various Government training schemes for unemployed of different ages. I think that the Government training centres have lost a lot of the criticism which was showered upon them two or three years ago, both from the employers' side and from the labour side. To-day they are meeting a real need. They are producing men who are semiskilled, and who, after a course of factory training, become skilled workers. They have made an appreciable advance in finding men for the engineering trades, in which they are so much needed. It is true that those men, when they come from the Government training centres, are often for a time a liability; but they have absorbed a great deal of the knowledge which it is necessary for them to acquire. The Government training centres are only applied to one class of men—the class of men who are promising, who are keen, but who are unlikely to get jobs of work in their own district at their own job, and are unlikely to get jobs of work in another district, without a special course


of training. I think they have fulfilled a very great service in the past year or two, and have proved to be an absolutely essential corollary to the Ministry's policy of transference.
I am also very glad to have found out recently from the Ministry of Labour that special efforts are being made to train men who are serving with the armed Forces, not in the period after they leave the Army but in their last six months in the Army. I think that that is a great advance, and I am glad to see that in the last year no fewer than 10,000 men have been so trained for civilian employment. I would like to ask the Minister whether that is not a system which could be extended to every recruit who joined the Army. I am sure it would have a considerable effect on recruiting, and that in itself is desirable; but I am equally certain it would be to the very great advantage of the men themselves who want to join the Army. To have to spend a period out of work after leaving the Army must be most disheartening.
The Minister has always taken a great interest in the welfare of domestic servants. He came into the open once, and made some remarks in public on the subject which brought upon his head a certain amount of ridicule; but I think he was justified in what he did then. I am satisfied, though, that there are quite a number of servant girls coming up to London who are not getting into the right sort of homes. I frequently find myself in the East End of London, where I have an opportunity of talking with young men in all sorts of work, and I get complaints that there are servant girls, especially from Wales, who are not getting into the right sort of homes. I wish the Minister would look into that a little more closely. I do not believe it is entirely, or even mainly, dislike of the idea of domestic service which causes the shortage of domestic servants. I cannot help thinking that it is partly due to anxiety on the part of parents as to what is going to happen to their daughters. It is most important that any possible justification for that fear should be allayed.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street criticised very harshly the Unemployment Act which was passed in the last Parliament. He criticised the separation of

the insured unemployed from those who have passed out of insurance and are now cared for by the Unemployment Assistance Board, and he also criticised very harshly the work of the Board itself. I cannot help feeling that in the last four years we have seen, both under the direct jurisidiction of the Minister of Labour and under the aegis of the Unemployment Assistance Board, an enormous improvement in the social work done for the unemployed: in the scales and assessment of their allowances, in the rates of their insurance, in their general welfare, in the finding of work for them, and in their transfer from depressed to more prosperous areas. I would say, with all sincerity, that when I look back on the last six years, and think of the various Measures the Government have passed, I believe that the Measure which has really done the most practical social service was the Unemployment Act, 1934. I believe it has been administered with the utmost wisdom and enthusiasm and discretion by the Minister of Labour, and I cannot associate myself with the criticism the hon. Member has made of the Board. The Ministry of Labour has broken the backs of most Ministers, but this particular Minister has broken the back of his job. [Interruption.] Well, there is an advantage sometimes in being able to shout your opponents down. The work which has been done in the last four years by the Minister of Labour, although it does not call for complacency, certainly calls for pride.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. White: I would like first to refer to the observations of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley) with regard to the practice of employing juveniles and then discharging them when the time comes at which they require to be paid a higher remuneration. That practice should be branded as anti-social, and I think that the fact is becoming more widely recognised. It was certainly the case that juvenile labour used to be discharged as soon as it was necessary to provide Unemployment Insurance stamps. Although I know that the practice to which the hon. Member referred is going on still, it is less prevalent.

Mr. J. Griffiths: If the hon. Member will allow me—

Mr. White: I do not want to be drawn into a discussion on that point. That is


my experience. Other Members may have a different impression. In spite of all that has been said with regard to the legal position of the special winter allowances that have been paid, I still find myself in a state of some confusion, because if it is necessary to have legal confirmation of the payment of these things it seems to me that there must have been illegal action. In any case, there is always the over-riding discretion, though it is true that that is limited.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): The point is that the general discretion of the Board, as the House knows, referred to special circumstances, but we cannot call winter special circumstances. When you get a very sudden and sharp rise in the cost of living, that is a special circumstance; but when we want to make these payments in the ordinary course legal powers are necessary.

Mr. White: That is now quite clear. But if there were to be automatic reductions by, say, 2s. a head for all, that would be a serious matter. I assume, however, that there will be no automatic reduction. In every case where a reduction is made, the client will have the right of appeal, and every case will be dealt with on its merits. The standards of the Unemployment Assistance Board are not maximum standards. It is not our method, unfortunately, in this country to work on maximum standards. I hope some Government some day will devote itself to finding out what are the proper standards of consumption and work to them. That will enable us to help not only the consumer but also the producer, which is very necessary.
Whenever unemployment assistance has been under discussion I have always sympathised with the Minister in having to answer for a body for which he has no responsibility, and in regard to which the House of Commons is in an anomalous position whenever it has to consider the operations of the Board. The time has come when the situation ought to be reviewed again. We do many strange things in this country, but to set down this autocratic body in the midst of a democratic Constitution is really an outrage on common sense. It is quite clear that it will not continue to work. Here we have this great unclassified,

amorphous body, squatted down amidst the social services of this country and possessing concurrent powers with other services. I am glad to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education is here, because the time has come when he and the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour should constitute themselves a triumvirate, and inquire into this Board and find out whether it is not usurping their functions. Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied, from the point of view of the Board of Education, that his Department is not being subsidised by the Board, and that it would be better for services which are in part controlled by the Board of Education, such as the supply of school meals, to be administered solely by his Department? The Board is rigid at the centre but elastic in its scope and uncertain in its intentions, and the time has come for something to be done before we get into greater difficulties, and before some of the backward local authorities find that this Board is doing work which ought to be their responsibility.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) referred to the expenditure of the Board. I must again draw attention to the very great increase in the expenditure of the Board, not upon the relief which it gives to the clients, but in connection with administration. In the financial years during which the Board was not responsible for these payments, but the Ministry of Labour and the local authorities combined, there were far more cases to be dealt with, and less was spent on administration. In 1933 there were 988,000 cases to be dealt with on a transitional basis, and the cost of administration was £3,385,000. In 1934, with 951,000 cases, the cost again was something over £3,000,000. In March, 1937, the number of cases had fallen to 600,000, and the services of the Board, together with payments to the right hon. Gentleman's Department, had gone up to £4,413,000. Now, I gather that the expenditure has advanced to something like £5,000,000, and the average weekly number of cases for the current year is 591,000.
I do not complain of the right hon. Gentleman, for I know that he is not responsible in any way, but I trust that he can give some explanation of what seems to be a very remarkable circum-


stance. I should imagine that the increase far outweighs any saving which might be brought about by the abolition of the winter allowance. I should like to know the views of the advisory committees on that particular point; whether they have in fact been consulted. The conduct of the Unemployment Assistance Board with regard to its advisory committees is rather unusual. It was part of their duty under the Act to establish these committees and they neglected to do it for 18 months or two years at a time when their services would have been of very great value. Now that they have been set up, it would be interesting to know whether, on a matter of this kind, they were consulted or whether they were not. If the Unemployment Assistance Board would consult with the regional committee which is helping the Minister of Health with regard to the National Health and Fitness Campaign, they might get some useful information and probably some very sound advice from them as well.
I wish to draw the attention of the Committee and that of my right hon. Friend to two matters which seem to be of importance as to general policy and specific difficulties in one or two industries. I refer to the development of security schemes which are under consideration in connection with those who are seeking a solution of the difficulties with respect to decasualisation of dock labour, and the preparation of schemes for giving greater security to shipping workers in connection with laying-up schemes and the like. For example, there is the scheme adopted by the soap manufacturing industry, and, in particular, the scheme which has been set up after careful consideration by the Joint Industrial Council for the milling industry. This is a matter of interest to many hon. Members of the Committee, including the hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law), the the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) and hon. Members representing milling districts. It is a matter of notable importance and wide application, and I would like to give the details in dealing with this matter. The scheme for security was developed as a result of the co-operation of the Joint Industrial Council of the milling industry. In considering and devising a scheme of that kind it had the

assistance of the flour milling Employers' Federation, the Co-operative Wholesale milling department and the corresponding Scottish society, and, on the workers' side, of the Transport and General Workers' Union, the Distributive and Allied Trades Union and the General and Municipal Workers. In the course of their normal business the question of remuneration of the flour milling operatives was under consideration, and it appeared that, although the weekly rate of pay was high, the actual amount received by the workers did not always agree with the actual rate of wages, owing to short time and reasons of that kind.
It was agreed that the workers were entitled to proper remuneration and wages and that that rate should be the weekly rate. They therefore devised a scheme, which is now in operation, in which the governing principle was that of continuity of employment or the payment of such an amount as would secure a full weekly income when stoppages occurred through slackness or short time or for other stoppages of the mills, with one or two exceptions—e.g. where a man was ill or absent from work of his own accord, or some other reason of that kind. That agreement was made on the understanding that the workman was entitled to his weekly rate of wage in all circumstances, and, in order that it should be done, he was to be paid for the week in which he was not fully employed such a sum, including his unemployment benefit, as to ensure the full amount of the weekly rate. While the arrangement was under consideration an attempt was made to obtain assurances as to what the effect would be under the Unemployment Acts. Inevitably inquiries could not be answered with any authority. The answer was that they could bring the scheme into operation, and that it would be possible under the machinery of law to say whether it was in fact within the operation and the scope of the Act. In April, 1937, the Court of Referees decided that the scheme could not operate, and in June the Umpire confirmed the disallowance, and there the matter stood.
The position now is that the scheme is in operation. The Employers' Federation, anxious that their workpeople should have the benefit of regular remuneration, have secured this on a sure foundation.


They have taken a forward and progressive view and the Joint Industrial Council are completely agreed on the matter. But all they have achieved by the scheme is that as long as a man is employed by a signatory to the agreement he shall not receive, in any circumstances, the benefits for which he and his employers have paid contributions week after week and year after year. I will not trouble the Committee with any further details. The right hon. Gentleman knows the position. Is it the case that these people and other people following on the same line, are to be penalised for adopting a policy which is in accord with public policy and for the benefit of the workers as a whole? That is the whole point. We know that it was the intention of legislation that matters of this kind should be inaugurated and put into operation. The Unemployment Act deliberately sets out the intention of Parliament, in language which could not be made more clear, that special schemes to be submitted to the right hon. Gentleman, are to be supplemental schemes, in which money may be paid to a man who is still unemployed to supplement his unemployment benefit. The right hon. Gentleman knows the circumstances and the importance of this matter and the wideness of its application in other schemes which are coming up, and we ask him to give it early consideration with a view to formulating the policy of the Ministry. He may have in his mind some way by which the matter can be dealt with and further consideration given to it and action taken. Those for whom I am speaking feel that they have a grievance and that an injustice is being done to them, and they hope that it may be redressed.
Another matter to which I wish to call the attention of the Committee is that of benefits in relation to customary holidays. It is a matter with which hon. Members who represent districts where there is much casual labour have been familiar for months past. It is a source of great irritation in all districts of that kind. The Parliamentary Secretary paid a tribute to the tact, ability and the general services rendered by insurance officers and employés in the Ministry up and down the country, and I associate myself with that expression of thanks. There is no matter which brings up more complaints and inquiries than

the trouble which arises after every public holiday, such as at Christmas and Easter, when one man has received benefit and his neighbour has not. There is a state of confusion and irritation which makes things very difficult. I appeal to the Minister to add to the catalogue of his achievements while in office the solution of this difficulty. The matter is difficult because it is not expressly provided for in any Statute. It has been held, however, that persons might not be regarded as unemployed during holidays, either statutory or customary, which fall during a period of employment, whether they are paid or not. That fact, whether it be right or wrong, is well understood.
The difficulty arises where the same principle is applied to the payment or non-payment of benefit in the case of holidays which fall in the midst of a short period of unemployment or suspension from labour. It is also necessary to bear in mind, in this connection, that a series of definitions or decisions, by the Umpire have laid it down that a recognised holiday is an incident of employment which constitutes one of its terms and can only be varied to express a tacit agreement. The real difficulty and confusion arise from the fact that these rules do not apply in the case of an industry where one who leaves his work on the eve of a holiday is held to be discharged. It therefore follows that the court has to decide whether a man is discharged or suspended or temporarily suspended. I think I can best explain the matter to those who may not be familiar with it if they will imagine, for example, that the right hon. Gentleman and myself are members of the Shipwrights' Union accustomed to work in a shipyard in the district with which I am familiar.

Mr. E. Brown: Or at Leith.

Mr. White: It arises in every port. We will confine ourselves to Birkenhead, where, in the hope of being employed at Messrs. Cammell Laird's works, more or less casually, on the Thursday before Good Friday, we present ourselves in the queue. We are the first to be offered the work and we assist in the shoring of a ship, which is naturally completed during the day. On the eve of Good Friday we cease. On the Tuesday after the Easter Monday we again look about for employment. The right hon. Gentleman goes back to the work he left, but I, having


met a friend who tells me that there is work going somewhere else, go there and get employment. My right hon. Friend is, of course, taken on at once for another day at Cammell Laird's, but because he has been taken on at the same works he is held not to have been discharged and does not get benefit for the customary holiday. I, by going somewhere else, am held to have been discharged and in consequence get my three days benefit. The result is that my right hon. Friend considers he has been ill treated. That case is multiplied in every seaport where there is a mass of casual labour, and it is high time an end was put to it.
Many advisory committees have given time and consideration to this matter. I can speak only for my own district, but on the Merseyside there is complete agreement between employers and employed as to what ought to be done. There was a time when hon. Members representing these districts were constantly having to deal with these complaints, but that is not the case to-day, not because the grievance is any less but because the situation is recognised and it is felt to be quite useless to pursue the matter any further. I know that the insurance officer who used to give an evening to these cases had a queue of people. I asked him why they came no longer, and he said it is because they understand now that it is hopeless, although they always ask whether their Member of Parliament knows what is going on. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider this question. There is plenty of evidence available and we know what his resources are. I hope he will tell us that in regard to the two points I have mentioned, the security scheme as a whole, and the question of customary holidays, he will give us some assurance that at long last these matters will be considered and settled.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Trevor Cox: The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) accused hon. Members on this side of the Committee of being complacent about the unemployment situation. That is hardly the case. We have always taken the greatest interest in the welfare of the unemployed; indeed, quite apart from politics, everyone in the House is anxious to see the unemployed man back again in industry, receiving as high wages as industry can

pay and with an assured future for himself and his family. But I want to consider one or two factors which cause unemployment. We are discussing this Estimate and devoting large sums of money for unemployment. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street said that recent trade figures have given us cause for concern. The "Daily Telegraph" yesterday had an interesting leading article on this subject, in which it said:
 It still remains undeniable that our export trade, during the past three months, has been running at about six per cent. below the level of a year ago.
Then there was a reference to the difficult position in which the cotton industry is to-day, and the leading article went on to say:
 During the first four months exports of cotton yarn and manufactures at £18,250,000 were actually £1,200,000 below the corresponding period of the worst slump year, whilst woollens make the worst showing since I933.
I hope I shall be allowed to make a few short remarks on various factors which play a part in causing unemployment. After the War there was an able report on the subject of commercial and industrial organisation in this country, the Balfour Report of 1918, in which it was said that Germany and America were ahead of us in industrial and commercial organisation. The report spoke of the comparatively little progress that was being made in the United Kingdom and the serious lack of progress in the iron and steel industry, which was overshadowed by German and American competition. It made it quite clear that part of the plant in industry at that time, and the general organisation of the country, were out of date, and were certainly having an effect indirectly on the unemployment figures. Some interesting observations were made by a distinguished French publicist some years ago, about the time when the National Government came into office, on the subject of the high industrial costs which existed at that time in British industry.

Mr. Bevan: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but at the same time I do not know whether this has anything to do with the administration of the Minister of Labour, and I should like to ask, Sir Dennis, what the Minister of Labour has to do with industrial costs in this country, and how he can administratively affect these costs?

The Chairman: Costs may affect industry and employment, and I cannot see that anything in the hon. Member's speech so far seems to be irrelevant.

Mr. Cox: As we are discussing questions concerning unemployment I think it is necessary for me to mention a few factors which have an effect on unemployment. This distinguished French publicist, M. Andre Siegfried, analysed various causes which brought about the industrial depression in 1931, and Lord Runciman who was then at the Board of Trade took considerable pains to answer his statements. M. Siegfried said:
The purely British causes of the economic depression are complex, but they can be summed up in a single sentence; English manufacturing costs are among the highest in the world. If this situation continues any economic structure based on exports is faced with inevitable ruin.
These words attracted considerable attention when the National Government first came into office. It seems to me that high industrial costs in this country to-day influence the unemployment figures. There is also the problem of industrial equipment and organisation. Many responsible observers believe that out-of-date equipment and inefficient organisation in industry as a whole are having a serious effect on British industry and especially on the export industry. M. Siegfried said:
The heavy industries, especially coal, iron and steel, continue to use equipment which is frankly out of date. The coal industry works many pits which technically must be classed amongst the most antiquated in Europe. There is comparatively little mechanical extraction, wooden pit-props are still used, and the utilisation of by-products, so important to-day, has progressed very slowly.

Mr. G. Griffiths: What is the date of that?

Mr. Cox: 1931. Then he makes a reference to the organisation in the iron and steel industry and says:
Apart from certain ultra-modern works constructed during the War, the majority of the blast furnaces are still of very mediocre capacity in comparison with up-to-date practice; while the steel mills require decided remodelling if they are to be run on modem lines. One receives a general impression of worn-out equipment, in spite of certain remarkable exceptions. In the nineteenth century the engineers of the world came to England to learn the latest technical methods, but to-day they go to America or Germany.
I do not say that that is the case to-day, but it was believed by responsible

persons at that time that there was a measure of truth in that general statement. In fact, that is why Lord Runciman replied to M. Siegfried's observations on several occasions. The question of the costs of production is a very vital matter for industry to-day. The Balfour Report of 1928 made a very detailed analysis of the costs of production in about 50 important undertakings, and compared the costs of production in the year 1913 with the costs in the years 1924 and 1925. The report said:
The average rise in industrial costs in the great exporting trades between 1913 and 1925 has been from 80 to 90 per cent.
That is a very substantial rise in the cost of production and must have had considerable effect on British industry. It must have prevented industry from capturing markets abroad and from reabsorbing large numbers of unemployed persons.

The Chairman: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member unnecessarily, but I thought he was going to relate his remarks to matters which come under the Minister of Labour, and I am afraid he is taking rather a long time to do that.

Mr. Cox: I am trying to point out that there are various factors which have an effect on unemployment.

The Chairman: The hon. Member must realise that things which have nothing whatever to do with the administration of the Labour Department are not matters which can be discussed on this Vote.

Mr. Cox: I will conclude by pointing out that there has been a tremendous improvement in British industry during the last few years; that unemployment has been considerably reduced, that industrial production has increased by one-half, and that unemployment in the Special Areas has been reduced by nearly one-half. I could give various other instances to show that the general improvement in industry has been very substantial.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Kirby: I am sure that the Committee heard with considerable interest the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, but like my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), I cannot help thinking that the Parliamentary Secretary treated the problem of the unemployed


with a degree of self-satisfaction and complacency which is hardly justified in present conditions. Although the hon. Gentleman has every reason to be satisfied with the administration of his Department, he has no reason to be satisfied with regard to the hard core of unemployment to which my hon. Friend referred. It is on that matter that I wish to address a few remarks to the Committee. I am afraid that in Debates in the House we are too much inclined to forget that we seem to have permanently with us 1,750,ooo unemployed people, at a time when the rearmament programme is in progress and when we are supposed to be having a general boom in trade. I would like the Minister and the Committee to note one or two outstanding facts which I think cannot be challenged.
In the first place, I believe it is true to say that most of us have come to look upon the position as being more or less static and unalterable. In my opinion, that is a wrong attitude to take up. Secondly, I would remind the Committee that, in spite of the apparent satisfaction of the Minister of Labour and the Government as a whole, in all the districts where unemployment is rife, in the Special Areas and the distressed areas, such as Lancashire and the Merseyside, the local authorities are persisting in their demands that greater and prolonged attention should be given to the problem of unemployment and that there should be Amendments to the 1934 Act. Another factor which has to be kept in mind is that the unemployed themselves are not satisfied in regard to the threatened reduction of winter allowances, particularly at a time when there is an increase of two points in the cost of living. It is no good the Minister of Labour telling us that, although it is true that the cost of living has risen two points during the last month, it is down as compared with 12 months ago or two years ago, or some other time. That may give some satisfaction to the Minister and to his accountants, but it gives no satisfaction to the housewife in the home of an unemployed man. Nothing that I can say, and nothing that can be said by hon. Members in any part of the Committee, will convince the wife of an unemployed man that an increase has not really taken place.
Thus the position is that the local authorities are dissatisfied with the terrible burden of unemployment, and there is dissatisfaction among the unemployed at the way in which they are being treated. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) said that he has had very many cases of people who came to him and complained about not being properly assessed, and I think it is true to say that every other Member of the Committee has received similar complaints and has been asked for assistance by unemployed men. The unfortunate thing is that, with this very efficient machinery which the Ministry of Labour and the Unemployment Assistance Board claim to have at the present time, there should be so many cases where reductions are made, apparently for no reason, and where, at a later stage, when the attention of the Minister or of the Board is called to them by some hon. Member, the reduction is restored and the matter put right.
As to the question of finding employment, a great deal has been said at different times, not only by the Minister of Labour, but by other Ministers, about the rearmament programme giving work to the unemployed in the distressed areas. A great deal of credit has been claimed by Ministers for having placed some of the aeroplane factories and other factories in the distressed or Special Areas; but it is very strange to note that in places where shadow factories and other factories have been built, the local authorities and various public people have complained, in nearly all cases, that the work of construction, at any rate, if not the work done in the factories after they were built, has been carried out very largely by labour brought in from places outside the areas which it was supposed to benefit. It would be very helpful if the Minister would tell us, when he replies, why it is that these things take place— why it is that when a Department of State decides to build a factory because of the State's necessity for rearmament and, because of the terrible state of unemployment in a given area, places the factory in that area, it brings in labour from other parts of the country, or even from outside the country, to carry out the job of building. I claim that it is right and proper that the Committee should demand from the Minister an answer as to why these things happen.
Another thing which we must not forget, in regard to the fundamental facts of the situation as it is to-day, is the policy of the Government in connection with tariffs, quotas, preferences, and so on. The party to which I belong is supposed to be a Free Trade party, but we have always stood by the principle that we were ready at all times to protect the British worker from unfair and sweated competition from abroad. To-day we find that unemployed workers in the pottery districts of this country are using china imported from Czechoslovakia. If that be true, something must be wrong with the policy of the Government in relation to tariffs, quotas and preferences, and in relation to unemployment, for it cannot be a good policy to impose tariffs in order to protect British industry and provide employment for British workers if, having put on those tariffs and caused an increase in the price of goods, one finds that the people who make the goods are thrown out of work and have to purchase out of their unemployment allowances similar goods made in foreign countries. The same thing can be said in regard to the glass workers at St. Helens, who buy glass goods from Czechoslovakia, Belgium and other countries. From the newspapers this morning, I see that it is now becoming quite common for cotton operatives in Lancashire, who have been going through a most terrible time, to wear, as part of the clothing which they buy out of their unemployment allowances, cotton goods produced in Japan.
I think those facts cannot be disputed, and we should have some enlightenment on them to-day. The Minister of Labour cannot get away with a comfortable, easy, lulling, soothing speech. In Merthyr Tydfil, the public assistance rate is over 15s. in the £. It is no good trying to "put across" Merthyr Tydfil the platitudes which we hear from this side and from the other side of the Committee from time to time about how well we are getting on in the solution of the unemployment problem. Another question which we have to consider is the maintenance of the able-bodied unemployed. The distressed areas conference has made certain representations to the Minister during recent months, and it will make further representations to him and to other Members of the Government during the next few days or weeks. I wish to

stress the fact that the claim made by the Minister of Labour that the 1934 Act took from the back of the local authorities the main financial burden of maintaining the able-bodied unemployed is not correct. After this Act has been in operation for two years, we find that in Liverpool we still have between 5,000 and 6,000 cases of able-bodied unemployed which, in the opinion of the City Council and its Public Assistance officials, who are experts in the matter, should be properly a liability of the National Exchequer. Those cases cost Liverpool nearly £7,000 a week, or £300,000 a year, and represent a rate in respect to them alone of 1s. 4d. in the £. In addition to that, there are from 50,000 to 70,000 persons in receipt of ordinary Poor Law relief.
It seems to me that if they are to tackle the problem of unemployment, the Government must not merely have a very good and efficient machine for the assessment and payment of relief, but must find a policy which will do away with the heavy burden of unemployment which we have and also ensure that places such as Liverpool, Durham and Merthyr Tydfil, shall have a fair deal in respect of the able-bodied unemployed. There is talk nowadays of the possibility of war, and it is true to say that if war broke out, Liverpool would become one of the most important and vital ports in this country, particularly in regard to food supplies. During a period when we have this great mass of unemployment which we now have, and which we have had for 10 or 12 years, the Mersey Docks and Harbours Board is expected to keep its docks and harbours up to date. The Liverpool City Council is expected to maintain its old standard of progressive activity in the sphere of municipal work. During the last 10 or 15 years, it has undertaken to construct the Mersey tunnel, which cost £8,000,000, and the main financial burden of which Liverpool bears. It is expected, between now and the next war, if it should come, to increase the efficiency of the port by the provision of new roads and approaches, and in every way to make improvements in the existing traffic ways.
While Liverpool is doing this, the Government are doing nothing to help. What can be said of Liverpool can be said of many other places throughout the country. The Government are


allowing Liverpool and other places to rot in this present period of unemployment, but should war break out, they will expect Liverpool to be up to date and fit and ready to carry on the work of prosecuting that war, as though there had been no unemployment problem. I often read with great interest the speeches made by the eight Liverpool Conservative Members of Parliament at dinners in Liverpool and district, boasting of Liverpool's greatness and wealth and prosperity. I am here humbly to call attention to its abject poverty. In a few days I understand the hon. Member for Walton (Mr. Purbrick) will be presenting at the Bar of this House a petition signed by 100,000 ratepayers protesting against the heavy burden of rates in Liverpool. Those rate burdens are due almost entirely to the heavy unemployment in Liverpool and other places.
The Parliamentary Secretary did not say anything to-day about the Special Areas Reconstruction Act, 1936, or the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, dealing with site companies. I expected to hear a great deal about those Acts and the wonderful progress which had been made as a result of them. No doubt it can be proved that certain progress has been made under those Acts, but they have made only the slightest difference to the amount of unemployment in any of the districts to which they have been applied. I feel it is the duty of this Committee to demand that the Minister in his reply to-night shall not deal merely with the ordinary mechanical operations of his Department and the administrative side of his work but that he shall tell the Committee what is the policy of his Department and of the Government to meet the difficulties arising from the fact that we have now, as we have had for many years, that great mass of unemployment which is referred to as the "hard core." Such questions as that of how to deal with the transferees and other difficult administrative problems are very important in their way, but what we want to know is how we are going to remove these 1,750,000 people from the ranks of the unemployed.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: The hon. Member for Everton (Mr. Kirby) referred to site companies, and, in the few minutes which

I intend to occupy the Committee I would like to relate the question of site companies to the human problem of unemployment. But may I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on the admirable way in which he opened this Debate? It was once said of a successful American salesman that his eloquent persuasiveness was so effective that he could sell "a glass of ice water at the North Pole. Having heard my hon. Friend open this Debate to-day, I feel certain that that salesman has a serious rival. In fact I could not help thinking of the lines from "The Two Gentlemen of Verona":
 His years but young, but his experience old;
His head unmellowed, but his judgment ripe.
He related the question of unemployment to the human problem and, as I have said, I would like to discuss the question of site companies in relation to the vital human question of unemployment. I believe that two factors have aroused public opinion recently on the question of the location of industry. The first is the social problem. In the years since the War, light industries, catering mainly for the home market, have centred more and more round London. The great export industries have suffered a certain decline. I refer in particular to coal and cotton. The workers in those great industries cannot, in many cases, find alternative employment once those great industries are adversely affected. To my mind the great tragedy of these areas is the tragedy of the older workers, of the older men and women who have grown up in the industry, who have suffered unemployment in the trade recession since the War, and who have not been affected by the recent partial recovery. I think the "Times" leader of 4th November, 1937. best sums up the matter:
 Many a woman in those areas knows that her husband, although he is able to return to full working employment, yet fears he may be a liability on his family for the rest of his days, because it would need an act of faith on the part of an employer to employ him again.
It is in particular with those men that I wish to deal; but before I come to that problem I wish to deal with the second factor which has governed the location of industry. I refer to the Defence factor. Over the great industrial cities to-day, with their crowded populations, their busy


wharves and railway yards and arterial roadways, hovers the threatening shadow of the bombing plane. Once those great cities are attacked, once the arteries leading to them are intercepted by bombardment, it becomes a great problem to feed their populations and supply them with the necessaries of life. It therefore becomes a question of supreme strategical importance to try to disperse industry as much as possible.
I think the Government have had this problem in mind and have advanced two solutions. First, they have attempted, by giving orders in the distressed areas in connection with the arms expansion programme, to redress in some degree the industrial equilibrium of the country. Secondly, they have attempted by a policy of inducement to attract industries back to those areas which most need a variety of industrial output. To my mind, one of the most beneficial results of this policy of inducement is the idea of site companies. Those areas in the North and other parts of England which have suffered for many years from unemployment do not, at first sight, produce the atmosphere to tempt industrialists. Great derelict mills with broken window-panes, deserted mine shafts, do not create an atmosphere such as modern industrialists need—that of the up-to-date well-lighted, well-aired factory often of only one storey. So, I hope this idea of the site company, once it has proved successful, will be actively developed.
I speak only for Lancashire because I know that part of the world best. Lancashire is a wide field for the site company. In the first place it has a great population which finds occupation mainly, if not entirely, in one great industry, and has therefore suffered extremely from the trade depression. It has a density of population twice as big, I believe, as London and the South-Eastern counties. It has available a great proportion of skilled labour, both male and female, which could readily find work in site companies. I close my remarks by making a special appeal to the Minister that, when these new industries come to the distressed areas, he should give the first preference in employment to those older men and women who have suffered most in the industrial depression. Lord Baldwin in one of the great speeches with which he closed his career made the following observation:
 Use men as ends not as means.
I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister who has travelled the length and breadth of the country studying social problems is far too humanitarian a person not to realise the truth of that principle, a principle which, I believe, should be the first objective of the social policy of our great, free, and enlightened people.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Hayday: I wish to speak particularly of the administrative side of the Department's work. Let me say at once how much I appreciated the details given to us by the Parliamentary Secretary and the very clear manner in which he presented the position. While he spoke of the placing of young persons, however, there was no mention of the placing of workers of middle age and over it. That, to my mind, is perhaps the most tragic side of the problem with which the country through the Ministry is called upon to deal and I would like the Minister in his reply to give us some percentage figures showing the number above the age of 50 who have been unemployed for a year or more, and who at present either remain on the unemployment benefit roll, or are receiving sustenance payments from the assistance committee. That is one thing which troubles the minds of a large number of people both inside and outside the House of Commons. While one may speak of the big number of juveniles who can be placed, I sometimes wonder whether they are not being placed at the expense of older men who are being kept out of employment. We should direct our energies to dealing with those unemployed persons who have, in the past, proved themselves to be among the best that this country has ever produced. They ought not to be allowed to become the flotsam and jetsam of our industrial system.
The Parliamentary Secretary also mentioned the growing extent to which the Employment Exchanges are used by both employers and workmen, as shown by the increased number of placings made through that machinery. I would like to see even that volume increased, provided we could always be sure that it was done in complete co-operation with those trade unions which have their "vacant" books. I have received occasional complaints that some employers go to the exchanges rather than to the trade unions


for the class of men who are represented in many of our skilled organisations. It is often found that friction is occasioned in that way. I would like the Minister to tell us that the arrangements with the trade unions are such that that cause of possible complaint is diminishing. I see no reason why, by complete co-operation between employers and trade unions, there should not be a gradual increase, until the machinery of the exchanges is being utilised to the fullest extent.
When we come to that part of the administration represented by the Unemployment Assistance Board there is, I think, serious ground for complaint. The Minister will recall that some time ago when we were discussing this matter I mentioned a case in which the Unemployment Assistance Board said, to an applicant: "Yes, on our own ascertainment, you would be entitled to supplementation of your benefit to the extent of 1s. 1d. per week, but the amount is so small that we cannot make arrangements to pay it." I then said that there must be thousands of such cases. While in the view of the Unemployment Assistance Board the amount may be small, serious hardship may be involved to the individual concerned because 1s. 1d. means so much in the working-class family budget. That case can be multiplied by many thousands of cases, and I would like to know, therefore, the extent to which the Unemployment Assistance Board is responsible for the increase in the amount shown in the Estimates. We are told that part of the increase relates to unemployment assistance and part to the Ministry of Labour itself. If there is to be an increased expenditure by the Board through imposing extra scrutiny on those who claim its help, and if they are to be denied the small amounts to which they are entitled because they are too small to pay, the increased expenditure cannot be justified.
When I last raised this point the Minister made a brief reference to it and said he did not think my complaints were correct, but that he would look further into the matter. At that time I had in my possession a letter from his Department which said that what I had stated was perfectly correct. How did it happen that the Minister said in the House that he felt I was wrong, and, at the same

time, sent me a letter stating that my information that allowances were refused because they were such a trifling sum was correct? The letter went on to give me information as to the Regulations which enabled the Board to use their discretion to say that 1s. 1d. was too small an amount for which to arrange payment. The Minister said he would look into it. That was in March, but I have heard nothing from him and I suppose the whole incident has been forgotten.
Let us take the other side of the question. I have the case of an individual who made application to the Assistance Board because he had exhausted his stamp benefit. This man had a wife and six children, and, taking into account his rent and so on, the allowance was put at 47s. 6d. The Board, however, said that they had used their discretion and had deducted 1s. 6d. from the estimate. That amount is not too small for a Board to take away in one case, but 1s. 1d. is too small an amount to pay in another case. I do not think that even the Parliamentary Secretary can justify poor people being made subject to such varying discretionary powers of the Unemployment Assistance Board. It is a shocking shame to tell a man in one case that he should have 1s. 1d. more, but that is was too small for the Board to arrange to pay, and in another to tell a man that he is entitled to 47s. 6d., but that the Board in their discretion will deduct 1s. 6d. No one can justify such a topsy-turvy kind of discretion.
There is another point I should like to mention, about which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) also feels keenly. A man and his wife receive under the Act 27s. Recently there was an increase of 1s. The man and wife under unemployment assistance receives 24s. Is there any reason why, if the shilling extra in benefit was justified and if originally the benefits were arranged so that they should be related to the allowances, that extra shilling should not be given to those under unemployment assistance when a man has exhausted his benefit? When the Ministry take money off because it is a winter allowance, they speak as though it would only debase the recipients to allow it to remain. It is the idea of some people that we cannot afford to keep it on because it will intensify the agitation for an increase of benefit under the Act.


I agree with the Trades Union Congress and Labor party decision that there should be no payment of less than £1 for a man, 35s. for a man and wife, and 5s. for each child. Some people would say that if we paid those amounts it would bring the rates over and above the rates of pay of a man when he is fully at work for some sweating type of employer. It is not for the nation, however, always to keep down to the lowest struggling standard.
The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. H. Kerr) said that there comes a time when, during a long period of unemployment, with the skimming of expenditure and the sacrificing of this or that little nourishment, people reach the standard set by unemployment benefit or the Assistance Board. If you see a man who has been out of work for five years you can see him daily deteriorating. You can see the effect on his home and his children and that they are not getting a reasonable opportunity of building themselves up as citizens who are virile, intellectually as well as physically. When scientists and others tell us that we want a physically and mentally alert nation, we are going about it the wrong way, especially when the Unemployment Assistance Board say, "We will use our discretion and, although you ought to have another 1s. 1d. we cannot set machinery going to pay it because it is so small." I knew a time in my life when 1s. 1d. meant a good sound meal for eight or nine of us. It means so much in the circumstances in which many of our people find themselves.
I hope that the Minister will not only look into that aspect of this question, but will intensify his interests in the middle-aged. Is the percentage of the middle-aged who have been unemployed from one to four years increasing? Many of these people have large family responsibilities. We talk of the population problem, but what can we expect in a home where the man and his wife are already handicapped in bringing up a small family owing to their inadequate income? How can we expect the boys and girls when they reach manhood and womanhood to bring into the world offspring who may be called upon to suffer the unnecessary, cruel and inhuman handicap such as they have had to meet?

6.56 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: There is one point on which I can cordially agree with hon. Members who have spoken from the other side of the Committee, and that is in congratulating my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary upon the speech with which he initiated this Debate. I have listened to more speeches from my hon. Friend than any Member of the House. There were a good many speeches which he made in another debating assembly some years ago, and also I listened to a large number in the United States when, strangely enough, he was upholding the Covenant of the League of Nations. I do not think I have ever heard him make a more effective contribution to a discussion than that which he made in opening this Debate today.
We have made it clear already that we in this part of the Committee support what was said by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) about the constitution of the Unemployment Assistance. Board. There is no doubt in our mind that in a democratic state a board which is not responsible to any Minister and which, therefore, does not come under the day-to-day supervision of this House, is an indefensible anomaly. I remember clearly the Debate that took place in the House when the Board was set up by the Act of 1934. We were told that there would be certain Parliamentary checks upon the actions of the Board. We were told that by Sir Henry Better ton, now Lord Rushcliffe. One of the checks was that the Board would be under a statutory obligation to produce an annual report which would be made available to Parliament. It is true that we have had the report, but the report which is now before the House in May, 1938, is for the period up to 31st December, 1936. This report was not made available until the end of July, only two or three days before the House rose for the Summer Recess. It was made available at a time when all the Supply Days were exhausted and it was impossible to call for a Supply Day on which we could discuss it. The only way in which it could have been raised was in the Debate for the Summer Adjournment, but even then we should only have had two or three days in which to study the report before the Debate.
That is an impossible way of dealing with this matter. This report was pro-


duced so late last year that it could not be subjected to Parliamentary criticism and debate. It is true that it might have been referred to on some other occasion such as the Debate on the Address, but every hon. Member knows the difference between raising a subject among a host of other subjects and raising it when it is the subject of specific debate. I think we ought to be told by the Minister why it was that last year it took seven months to produce the report for 1936 and why, although we are now in May, apparently it is going to be June or July before we receive the report for 1937.
I want to refer to the legal position regarding winter relief. The extra relief has been granted following upon the circular that the Board issued to its area officers in October, 1937. That circular mentioned two circumstances as the reasons for giving higher relief in a certain category of cases. The circumstances were, firstly, the rise in the price level and, secondly, the oncoming of the winter months. On those grounds it was intimated to the officers of the Board that in cases where the allowance from the Board represented 50 per cent. or more of the total household income, the officers should use their discretion to raise the assessment by an amount of 2s. or 3s. a week. It has always seemed to me that this circular was a very doubtful step on the part of the Board, because it purported to be done under the Unemployment Regulations. May I remind hon. Members of the scheme of those regulations? Firstly, paragraph 4 says that the amount of the applicant's scale allowance shall be calculated in the manner provided by the First Schedule to the Regulations. That is a mandatory direction. An exception is made later on, because sub-paragraph 2 says that, if in any case special circumstances exist, the amount calculated may be adjusted by way of increase or decrease, and then in sub-paragraph 3, if in any case needs of an exceptional character exist the allowance may be increased. The material words are "if in any case."
I understood the Minister, when he intervened a little while ago, to admit that this discretion can operate only in individual cases. In other words, the officers are directed to give the relief according to a certain scale, and they can make an alteration only where there are

special circumstances or needs of an exceptional character in a particular case. But under this circular they were not dealing with particular individual cases at all, because no one could conceivably maintain that the rise in the cost of living which had taken place at the beginning of last autumn was a circumstance peculiar to one or two households. No one could possibly say that the oncoming of the winter months was a special circumstance. It must be obvious that those two circumstances on which the increased relief was justified were circumstances common to every household coming under the jurisdiction of the Unemployment Assistance Board. That is to say that what the Board were doing was using these limited powers of discretion in individual cases in order to make a general increase covering many thousands of households. So it appears to me that it is exceedingly doubtful whether what was done by the Board is within the powers conferred by the Regulations, that is to say, sanctioned by the House.
No one will complain that the increases were made. We are all very glad that they should have taken place, but it was entirely the wrong way of doing it. Not now, but last autumn, if it was thought necessary to have these increases because of the oncoming of the winter months and the rise in the price of commodities, the right course would have been to introduce fresh Regulations and bring them forward for the assent of Parliament. It seems to me not merely a Ministry of Labor matter. On constitutional grounds it is a very serious matter when this Board, which already escapes most forms of Parliamentary control, arrogates to itself powers that it clearly does not possess.

Whereupon, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

1. Poor Law (Amendment) Act, 1938.
2. Conveyancing Amendment (Scot-land) Act, 1938.


3. Eire (Confirmation of Agreements) Act, 1938.
4. North West Midlands Joint Electricity Authority Order Confirmation Act, 1938.
5. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Scarborough) Act, 1938.
6. Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bridgwater Extension) Act, 1938.
7. Bourn mouth Gas and Water Act,1938.
8. Salt burn and Marske-by-the-Sea Urban District Council Act, 1938.

SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Question again proposed,
 That a sum, not exceeding £14,837,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Labour, including sums payable by the Exchequer to the Unemployment Fund, grants to local authorities, associations and other bodies in respect of unemployment insurance Employment Exchange and other services; grant in aid of the National Council of Social Service; expenses of transfer and resettlement; expenses of training of unemployed persons and, on behalf of the Army Council and Air Council of soldiers and airmen for employment; contribution towards the expenses of the International Labor Organization (League of Nations); expenses of the Industrial Court; and sundry services.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Foot: Before we were summoned to the other place I was drawing attention to the fact that the Board, in issuing those instructions last October, had stretched the discretionary powers of its officers further than they could ever have been intended to go. It is rather interesting to inquire why the Board should have done that. Why did they not take the obvious course, if they thought, as they evidently did, that in a great many cases the scales of relief were inadequate, of bringing fresh Regulations to this House? They are empowered under the Act to bring forward fresh Regulations at any time they think fit. I have referred to the Board's annual report being produced so

late in the Session that this House has no chance of examining it, and to their misuse of their discretionary powers in doing things which ought to have been the subject of fresh Regulations, and would point out that there is one feature which is common to both complaints: This Board, which already is not subject to sufficient democratic and Parliamentary control, is always trying to further evade Parliamentary supervision.
There is one other feature of the Circular which was issued in October of last year which I do not think has been raised in this House. The increase due to the cost of living in the winter months was, of course, only to be given in certain cases. I am not sure, but I think the proportion of cases in which there has been an increase under the Circular is somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 per cent; and it was laid down that officers were advised to give this increase only where the allowance or allowances represented 50 per cent. or more of the total household income. But it is obvious that the rise in the cost of living and the increased cost of subsistence in the winter months affected just as much the other households which came under the Board, so that the Circular in effect meant that in those particular cases which were singled out the additional burden was to be borne by the funds of the Board but in the other cases, numbering some 70 or 75 per cent. the burden was not to be borne by the Board but out of the other resources of the household, that is to say, in the vast majority of cases it would come out of the earnings of other members of the household. Therefore this did mean in a great many cases an intensification of the existing household means test.
I have only one other point to submit, and it arises not out of the action of the Board but of the appeal tribunals. I suppose that every month there must be thousands of appeals whenever there are new determinations. I am told that what happens in a large number of cases is this: The applicants are assessed at a certain sum by the Board's officers and when they go before the appeal tribunals the tribunals increase the assessments, but that the increased payments run only from the date of the appeal tribunals decision. I do not say that is so in every case, but I am told that it is so in a


large number of cases That is something which I find it rather difficult to understand. If the appeal tribunal alters the decision of the Board's officer and gives a higher assessment it means that they are saying that in their opinion the original assessment was a wrong assessment, and that for the week or two intervening between the assessment by the officer and the determination of the appeal the applicant has been receiving less than in their view he ought to have received. Surely in those circumstances it is only fair and right that in every case where an increase is granted it should be made retrospective from the date of the original assessment. These are just a few matters which I think are of considerable importance to the constituents of those Members who represent industrial constituencies and I hope that we may have an answer from the Minister of Labor in due course.

7.24 p.m.

Mrs. Tate: It is very natural when the Ministry of Labour Vote is before us that we should hear a great deal about the hard core of unemployment, and no one would wish to under-estimate the seriousness and the tragedy of that problem, but I think it is regrettable that we have not had one reference from hon. Members opposite to the fact that there are also a very large number of vacancies in the labor market which at the present time it is quite impossible to fill.

Mr. T. Smith: Of what kind?

Mrs. Tate: The hon. Member will hardly deny that there are a very large number of vacancies in various parts of the country in the agricultural industry, in the highest grades of the engineering trades, I think in some parts of the printing trade, and most certainly, and all over the country, in domestic service.

Mr. T. Smith: Surely the hon. Lady knows that there are a large number of agricultural workers out of employment?

Mrs. Tate: But no one can deny that in many parts of the country farmers cannot find the requisite number of workers for their farms. If the hon. Member turns to page 10 of the Ministry of Labour Report he will see a reference to there being vacancies which they have not been able to fill, including skilled building

trade operatives, engineering trade workers, hotel employés and domestic servants. One hon. Member opposite said it was no use the Minister coming to the House to try to make a lulling and soothing speech. I do not know whether he was referring to the Parliamentary Secretary. I found his speech encouraging and heartening and exceedingly able, and certainly I did not regard it as lulling. If he was referring to the anticipated speech from the Minister in winding up the Debate though many adjectives can be used about his speeches, and he is always able, I have never heard the noise which he makes called either "lulling" or "soothing." I do not think that what he says to hon. Members opposite can be considered soothing.
The hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Crossley) referred to the young workers who are brought from other parts of the country to London and who get into very undesirable situations. I think no one will deny that there are a certain number of young people from the distressed areas who do, unfortunately, get into undesirable situations, but I am certain from the personal experience which I have had, and from inquiries which I have made, that they are not the young people brought, down by the Ministry of Labor.

Mr. Crossley: I did not say they were brought down by the Ministry of Labor. I said they came down and took employment. I do not know how they got down.

Mrs. Tate: I am sorry if I misrepresented what the hon. Member said. There is no doubt that what he has called attention to is a problem, because some of them do get undesirable situations, but if they would come down under the care of the Ministry of Labour that could not occur. It is a great pity that the work which the Ministry of Labour does in filling domestic vacancies for young people first taking up domestic service is not better known. The young people are often extremely well trained, and careful inquiries are made before they are placed, and the after-care is really beyond all praise. I pay that tribute to the Minister's work after having had personal experience of it.
I should like to ask what the Minister considers is the size of the gap between the numbers of those who are wanted by industry and yet cannot be found as


against the numbers of those who are unemployed but cannot find work, and what steps are being taken to train people for the vacancies apart from what is done by the juvenile training centers. What percentage of the gap does he consider he will be able to fill in one year? One point which needs the serious consideration of the Ministry is the unlimited overtime which is being worked by the Unemployment Assistance Board area officers, both in London and the provinces. In one London area office approximately 40 clerks are employed, and since the second appointed day, that is 1st April, 1937, at least 30 of them have been working continuous overtime three hours a night from Mondays to Thursdays, and more on Fridays. That amounts to 500 hours of overtime a week in one office. On Fridays the staff must not leave until they get orders from the divisional officer, as all applicants have to be dealt with. No one can say that anyone who is working so much overtime continuously will be able to give as effective work as one who has proper leisure after working for proper hours. Overtime should be resorted to only in an emergency; it should never be taken as a usual proceeding. Looking at it from another point of view, the applicant cannot get the same attention, however willing those men are to give it.
We must also look at the question of cost. I think I am right in saying that permanent civil servants received from 2S. 3d. to 9s. 11d. an hour overtime. If you took temporary clerks employed at £ 3 a week, it would mean a considerable saving to the Board in wages, and it would also save insurance money to the clerks. At the office where they have been working continuously 500 hours a week overtime, if you said that that work averaged 3s. an hour, it was costing £35 a week, and had they engaged 11 temporary clerks at £3 a week, it would have cost only £33. Therefore, looking at it merely from the point of view of expense, I think it would be well worth while, and certainly, from the point of view of desirability, there can be no question about it. I am not pretending that taking on a few extra clerks will do anything appreciably to diminish unemployment, but I do say that you could employ there men of over 40, who are a class for whom it is far more difficult to find work.
I would also like to ask the Minister whether any steps are being taken in this direction? There is a type of woman, a clerk, say, who finds it almost impossible to obtain employment— the deserted wife, for instance, with young children. In a large town such as this there are considerable numbers of such women, and it seems to me that if we could set up some really efficient creche and nursery home, where the women could receive training for skilled domestic labor and could then be allowed to take daily work, you would not separate them from their young children, and you would rehabitate them and make; them able to earn a useful and appreciably comfortable living, whereas at present they are living in acute anxiety, very often with real suffering and misery, and finding it almost impossible to get any kind of work. They are obliged to apply for relief, with occasional applications to the courts for their maintenance allowance, which, as hon. Members who work in courts know, it is often almost impossible to collect. I wish to draw those few matters to the attention of the Minister.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Leslie: I followed with considerable interest the somewhat rapid review of the work of the Ministry given by the Parliamentary Secretary. One part of his statement in particular interested me, and that was his reference to juvenile unemployment. We were told that last year 700,000 children left school and that some 600,000 of them entered the labour market. One wondered how many of those 600,000 children secured continuous employment. It is nothing short of a tragedy that thousands of children are thrown on to the labour market each year at the age of 14, without any prospect of continued employment. That means that thousands drift into blind-alley jobs. Then they drift out again, the future to them seems hopeless, they feel that they are not wanted, and thousands of them drift into a life of crime. We see how juvenile crime is increasing at a very rapid rate, and anyone who has anything to do with juvenile courts knows that that is only too true. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that a large number of juveniles were being placed in the Midlands and Birmingham. Why do they want them there? It is because they are cheap child labor.
Might I remind the Minister of the report of the Chief Inspector of Factories for last year, in which he showed the excessive amount of overtime that is being worked by these juveniles? I am very glad that the hon. Lady the Member for From (Mrs. Tate) mentioned this question of overtime, because systematic overtime is one of the greatest curses of the present commercial system. What does it mean? It means that, on the one hand, men and women and, according to the Chief Inspector's report, boys and girls also are working almost all the hours that God sends, while, on the other hand, men, women, boys, and girls are walking the streets vainly searching for work. Another thing that the Chief Inspector shows is that one result of that excessive overtime is a large increase in the number of accidents, and I think that this is something that the Minister of Labor should look into in order to see that the inspectors are carrying out their duties. Unfortunately, there are far too few inspectors—only one inspector for 2,000 factories and workshops.
Young people are constantly being sent from the distressed areas, from home and home influence, instead of work being provided nearer home, and here is where the Government have neglected the question of the location of industry. They have allowed foreign firms to come into this country and to start factories and workshops. It is true that they have to employ "British labor, but why, when these foreign firms have to receive permits from the Government, do not the Government lay down as a condition where these factories and workshops shall be set up? The proper place for them to be is in the distressed areas. In the past six years over 40,000 people have been transferred from the county of Durham alone, torn away from home and friends, and today there are approximately 48,000 unemployed in that one county. The result is that public assistance in the County of Durham is now costing 10s. 5d. in the £. Therefore, I ask why should rich communities escape while poverty-stricken areas have to bear this huge burden of the unemployed? It is no wonder that the late Commissioner for the Special Areas condemned the dumping of factories in the South to the detriment of the North, which has meant congestion and

housing scarcity in the London area and congestion in traveling facilities, as everyone knows who has traveled on the tubes and buses in the London area.
In my own division there is a place called Port Clarence, where at one time blast furnaces and coke ovens employed between 5,000 and 6,000 men, but today all those blast furnaces and coke ovens have been scrapped, and the village is lying derelict. It is the same at Stilling-ton, another village, where blast furnaces have been scrapped and where at one time over 600 men were employed. The people there feel that there is no hope for them. Nothing has been done to assist them, and yet, in both those places, there are excellent sites for factories, and transport facilities, both by road and rail, second to none; and if the factories want to do an export trade, a seaport is available. We hear a lot about the Team Valley Estate. It is good in its way, but it does not meet the needs of the County of Durham, because the distances are too far from where the need for work is greatest. You cannot expect workers to travel 20 or 30 miles every day in order to go and find a job on the Team Valley Estate.
A good deal has been said about the cost of living. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that there had been an appreciable increase in the allowances. I took careful note of his figures. He said that in 1938 the allowances averaged 24s. 5d., in 1937 23s. 11d., and in 1936 23s. yd. If we take last year's figure of 23s. 11d. as against this year's figure of 24s. 5d., how can he say that that is an appreciable increase when it means an increase of only 6d.? We know very well that the cost of living has been increasing, and I want to quote in this connection what appeared In an important Tory organ on Sunday last. This important Tory organ stated that the announcement made by the Minister of Labor had created a considerable amount of feeling.
 Housewives have been surprised by the Minister's statement. They have found no evidence of cheaper food.
A ' Sunday Chronicle ' woman investigator yesterday made a shopping tour.
She found that in almost every staple food prices have risen in the last 12 months. This time last year, according to official figures, tea averaged 2s. 1¾d. a 1b., fresh butter 1s. 3d. a lb., bacon 1s. 2d. a lb.
Today housewives are paying 2s. 2½d. a lb. for tea, 1s. 4¼ d. and 1s. 6d. a lb. for


fresh butter, and 1s. 5d. a lb. for bacon.… Meat, vegetables, flour, sugar, cheese, eggs, and margarine have all gone up.
This table shows the comparative prices in staple foods during the past year:

This table shows the comparative prices in staple foods during the past year:



May,
May,



1937.
1938.



Per lb.
Per lb.



s. d.
s. d.


Beef (British)
1 1½
1 2½


Beef (frozen)
0 8¾
0 9¾


Mutton (frozen)
0 9¾
0 10


Flour (7 lb.)
1 3¾
1 5


Bread (quartern)
0 9¼
0 9½


Sugar (granulated)
0 2½
0 2¾


Cheese (New Zealand)
0 9¾
0 11


Margarine
06¼
0½

This investigator who was sent by the "Sunday Chronicle" found that the statement made by the Minister of Labor could not be borne out. She found that prices had all increased. The Nutrition Committee, an official Government committee, recommended that every child should have i½ pints of milk a day. That would cost, at today's prices, 3s. 4¾d. a week, which is 4¾d. more than the Unemployment Assistance Board allows for the total maintenance of a child. That is why we claim that the allowance is far too low. The Parliamentary Secretary gave us a number of figures with respect to the unemployed, but we still have over 1,500,000 unemployed, and the Government turn a blind eye to the overtime that is being worked while 1,500,000 are walking the streets vainly seeking work. The Government also still oppose a reduction of the working hours. In conclusion, I would like to know from the Minister, when he replies, what are the intentions of the Government when their representative goes to Geneva in June to deal with the 40-hour week question.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: It may sound somewhat cynical to say so, but when we have a bit of scandal going on in the House, such as a member of the Royal Family in trouble or some Cabinet Minister being indicted, the House is packed, but when a human problem, about the welfare of decent men, women, and children comes up, the House is very badly attended. Worse even than that, the interest of Members is very lukewarm. I suppose hon. Members think that this subject has lost in excitement, that it is no longer an exciting subject. The ordinary Member of Parliament, like

everybody else, is constantly on the hunt for change and excitement.
I am not demanding or pleading that we should have trading estates or schemes of work. I would remind hon. Members above the Gangway that the country is today spending hundreds of millions of pounds on armaments. I do not know the exact sun:, but when we make allowances for employers' profits and fictitious values, we find that we are spending a colossal sum on armaments. To that extent we are providing work, but with all that vast expenditure we have still 1,750,000 unemployed. When hon. Members go about hunting for little schemes of work here and there, they are hunting for what is very trivial compared with the enormous expenditure upon armaments; they are hunting for something which is little or nothing in the way of a solution of the unemployment problem. We have in our time denounced tariffs. Do not let us start a bastard system of tariffs ourselves. I see questions on the Order Paper suggesting that work should be confined to this or that locality, and it almost seems a crime that men should move from district to district. I trust that while we may have strong and sympathetic feelings for the unemployed we shall not be driven to any desperate point of view which will prevent the ordinary worker from getting his living where he can from day to day.
I hope that some day I shall be fortunate enough to be called when the Minister is in his place and that I shall have a chance of addressing the House while he is present. I do not blame him for his absence at the present time because I know he must have food. I should like to call attention to a matter relating to shipbuilding localities, particularly Glasgow. In the shipbuilding areas particularly, and it happens sometimes in mining and other districts, the workpeople have a set holiday. A man— it also applies to women, but I address myself particularly now to the men— may start work just before the holiday period, and when the holiday comes he may be dismissed. During that holiday period he is not eligible for any standard benefit, because it is held that he is not unemployed, as the holiday is a normal holiday period. That argument may have had force previously, but I submit to the Minister that it has ceased to have the force that it used to have.
It used to be accepted that a holiday period was a period when a man earned nothing, but now employers have come to agreements to recognise payment for holidays, in principle. In the engineering and ship-building trades they now recognise the holiday period as a time for payment: but here we have an unemployed workman, who is more in need of money than those who are being paid for the holiday, and he is deprived of any benefit. That man may have been taken on two days before the holiday was due to begin and he may have been unemployed three weeks. His job lasts only two days and then he is dismissed. The normal holiday may be four, five or six days. He gets no payment for those days from the Employment Exchange, because the holiday is held to be a normal holiday period, while the worker in the shipbuilding yard, who has never been unemployed during the whole year, will receive payment for the holidays. The payment for holidays has certainly altered the whole complexion of the matter, and I hope that the Minister will look into it before July, when in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee holidays of 10 days duration start. I have never said in the past that they were holidays, because I hold that a man who has 10 days off without payment is unemployed. It is unfair that men and women should be deprived of benefit for the whole 10 days of a holiday or for a shorter period, and I hope that the Minister will have the question examined.
There is another question which I should like to raise in regard to a practice which is creeping into unemployment insurance. We are getting what is called in the law courts case law. What is happening is that the Umpire now, for good or ill, is really making the law. I should like the Minister to review the whole question of dependants' benefits in the light of what is happening. A case came to my notice the other day of a young woman, who earned 35s. a week. She lives with her mother, who has a widow's pension. She has to travel to her work and it costs her 3s. a week. She pays for unemployment and health insurance and gives her mother 29s. a week. The girl was dismissed from the bonded warehouse where she was employed, and she applied for dependant's

benefit for her mother, on the ground that she had given her mother 29s. a week.
A most amazing thing happened. They added the 29s. which the girl paid to her mother to the 10s. widow's allowance which her mother received, making a total of 39s. Then they divided the 39s. by half, which represented 19s. 6d., and as 19s. 6d. was not double 10s., which is the amount of the pension, the girl could not get anything in the way of dependant's allowance for her mother. If I had seen the girl beforehand I should have told her not to be a mug and to pay 29s. to her mother, but to pay her 30s. and then she would have got the dependant's allowance. Here is a girl contributing 29s. out of the total family income of 39s. and it is held that she has not been supporting her mother. That is the law now. The Act says that she has to prove that she has been the main support of the mother, that the mother has been mainly dependent upon her. I should say that a girl who contributes regularly 29s. out of the total income of 39s. is the main contributor to that household, and yet they refuse her mother the dependant's allowance.
I would ask the Minister to look into this matter. Nobody can understand these mathematical calculations. I think I know unemployment insurance very well, but when you start multiplying, then subtracting and dividing I defy any man to explain it in regard to dependants' allowances, especially children's allowance. Benefit for an unemployed person ought to be simple and easy to understand, and injustices ought not to be involved. Hitherto we have always discussed dependants' benefit as if we had no means test for standard benefit, but there is growing up a practice which used not to be so common. For instance, if a man is earning £ 3 to £4 a week and he has adult sons or daughters and one or two young children, there is growing up a practice of having a means test for standard benefit. They put the total income together, and then by the process of dividing it is made out that not the father but the sons mainly maintain the household. Technically, by another umpire's decision, the son may claim allowance for the children, but nobody seems to know about it, the son does not claim and so there is no benefit when it comes to the children. It is practically held that nobody maintains them. I hope the Minister


will go into this question of dependants' benefit as it is now administered.
I will not go into the question of what the Board have done. There is no doubt that what they have done was illegal. I am afraid of what may happen some day, when illegal procedure is to be allowed to the Board. The Board, headed by Lord Rushcliffe, have no right to break the law, yet they break the law with impunity, but if a poor fellow says that his boy was not working last week, when he was, and he draws 5s. benefit, he may have to go to prison. Yet Lord Rushcliffe and his colleagues actually break the law. I am afraid that some day, when trade takes a turn for the worse, he may break the law in regard to the regulations and reduce unemployment benefit.
With regard to the question of the so-called reduction of 2s. in the cost of living, when I told my wife about it she said: '' You represent a working class district. When is it winter and when is it summer to your constituents? The fire has to burn all the year round. They are not like those people who have gas fires and electric fires." In working class homes, whether in Bridgeton, Gorals, Camlachie, Durham, in a Welsh Valley or in Shore ditch, the working class conditions and the working class people are much the same. They have to burn coal all the time, and there is little if any decrease in expenditure in that respect. The fact is that the summer allowance is far too low.
There is one further question to which I would allude, which particularly affects trade unions, and it is, I am afraid, a danger to trade unions. I refer to the wage stop administration. I take it that it is now an accepted fact. What is happening is that this wage stop has been extended even out with the Act. Take the case of a young man serving his time. He is 20 years of age, and his time will be finished when he is 21. Just before his time is out, he gets married. That is no crime; at least I hope that he is still allowed to get married and that the Parliamentary Secretary agrees that that is so. When the young man was serving his time he was receiving 30s. per week, but on the day his time was out he was sacked and he did not earn a journeyman's wage. By the time he goes to claim his benefit a child has been born,

but they say to him: "You are on the wage stop; you never earned the wage," and no allowance is made for the fact that if the man had not been married he would never have worked for the wage he had been getting. No allowance is made, as is done by the pensions people. Let us not forget that the Minister of Pensions made some allowance for the potential earnings of such a man, who would no longer be an apprentice. Trade being bad, he might not always be able to get into a job. The officials admit now that it is a terrible criticism of the wage system that he should not be able to live on the wage he receives.
What they are now doing in Scotland is a shocking thing, as I see it. They say: "We will grant you 15s. in money and 10s. in kind." When that kind business was begun it was meant only for the fellow who battered his wife or spent his money improperly. It is not denied by the officers of the Board that it is being used as a means of dealing with the wage question. They say: "We cannot give you £2, as you were earning only about £2. What we will do is to give you 30s. in money and 10s. in kind." They have no right to do that, in my view, and I warn the Minister in regard to this matter. I warn also my trade union friends that they should oppose payment in kind even to the bad man, because once you agree to it for one man the practice is extended to other men. We had payment in kind in the Scottish Poor Law, but it was applied only on rare occasions when the character of the man was in question. Now it is done when there is nothing against the character of the recipient except that he unfortunately had a low wage before he was unemployed. I say to the Minister that there is no right to extend payments in that way.
I now wish to refer to something which has cropped up in regard to investigations. I understand that there is a form B (6) upon which an investigator writes particulars about an unfortunate applicant. They used to ask about nationality, the kind of house, and questions like that, and the answers were simply "Yes" or "No," as upon an Income Tax form; but that is now altered and the old form is scrapped. I have not seen form B (6) but I have been told by at least two unemployed men that they have seen copies of the form. One of them got possession of a copy, in what I think was


not a strictly legal way, and I think he could be prosecuted for his method of getting it. He told me what he had done, and I answered that if that was the only thing he ever took from a Government Department, he would do very well indeed. Nowadays they draw a picture. Investigators go much beyond the particulars about the family income, and I will describe what I am told happens. It is a serious matter and I would like a denial from the Minister.
The investigator actually describes the political belief of the man concerned. I am told that in one case a certain applicant was said to be a man holding seditious views, and that because he did so a period of work would do him some good. Another man was described as holding certain religious beliefs. He was said to be a man of first-class character and clean habits who spent over-much time upon his religious devotions instead of making efforts to get work. I know all the members of the Board, including the chairman. They are very human people. People often sneer in newspaper articles and elsewhere as though Members of Parliament were not as good as other people, but I always take the view that nobody need be ashamed to serve his constituency here. I never put myself on a pedestal for doing so. I would not mind investigators writing down a man's habits if the man himself were supplied with a copy of what is written; that would be justice, but no, the document is said to be highly confidential. Form B (6) contains information about men's houses and habits. Why should not the men be given an opportunity of answering those comments? Some of the people who describe men as dirty depend upon the sons and daughters of the working class for their cleanliness.
During the War we used to hear a good deal about inquisitions and inquiry forms. I would ask the Minister whether he would produce to this Committee, either to-night or upon some future occasion, a copy of form B (6) from each of six different parts of the country and filled up in, say, Liverpool, Glasgow, Wales and London, a week or two ago, so that we might know what is in them. They should be typical forms.

Mr. Boulton: Would the hon. Gentleman say in what circumstances the form is given or used?

Mr. Buchanan: I do not rightly know. I am up against the fact that I have never seen one of the forms. I went to ask about it, and I was told that I had no right to it because it was a highly confidential document. The unemployed man never sees the document but, as I have said, I received information from two men, one of whom is certainly a creditable witness and who did see it, by some underhand method. He says that on it was a description of private matters with which the Board have nothing to do at all.

Mr. Ede: I was informed of a case in which one of these forms was left lying on the table while the investigator's head was turned, and the applicant saw written on it words to this effect: "This man holds extremist views and ought not to be encouraged." He reported the matter to me and I communicated with the Minister of Labour. The Minister held an investigation and informed me that he had said that such an entry ought not to have been made, and that the officer who made it had been reprimanded. That is as near as I got actually to seeing the form. It was an admission on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that the form had been used with regard to something about which it should not have been used.

Mr. Buchanan: The hon. Gentleman backs me up, and the Minister will now have to put the matter right. If that man had not been cute enough to look across the counter—

Mr. Ede: We have cute men in Shields.

Mr. Buchanan: I think the man in the case I have mentioned came from the district of Maryhill. He was alleged to hold seditious views and to be a man who ought to be chased out to look for work. These things may be true or untrue, but men are surely entitled to know that they are being said and that there is a private investigation into the lives of people concerning most intimate matters. If such an investigation were to take place in reference to Income Tax there would be hell to pay in this House of Commons. Suppose a secret document were to go in saying: "This man ought to pay. He is a well-known tax dodger." Or: "This man is alleged to have held views at one time, along with other Conservatives, and he took part in the gun-


running in Northern Ireland." Suppose this kind of thing went out: "This man made a speech down in Mid-Bucks backing up the rebels in Spain." I am practically certain that if the Labour party were in power they would not discriminate against supporters of Sir Oswald Mosley. They would not say that a poor devil who followed Mosley should be punished because of it. We may have our prejudices, but such a form with its secret information, will, I trust be put an end to.
I have one last remark to make about the amount of benefit paid to unmarried women and to single men, and I ask the Minister whether he will examine the position. Certain voluntary organisations conducted an inquiry in Glasgow to find out how single people lived. I understand that the allowance for single people is now to be 10s. If you take 5s. off for rent, 1s. for light and heat, another 1s. for ordinary traveling and 6d. for boot repairs and clothing it leaves 7s. 6d. to live upon. I interviewed a typical woman of 45 years of age in my division. She had been in one job steadily for 21 years and has been idle for two years. She is living on 15s. Her family budget leaves 7s. 6d. for food—1s. 1d. per day, or 3½d. or so for a meal. Do hon. Members understand the position of that woman year in and year out, permanently poor? Again, take the single man living in lodgings on 15s. a week; take the girls who go and work at Southport or Black pool on 15s. a week, of which the greater portion goes for their lodgings.
I must confess I was angered in my native city, where there is now a huge exhibition. I have nothing to say against it; people want a certain amount of fun and variety in life, and I would not do anything to stop it; but on one Saturday in that city there were tens of thousands of people at the Exhibition who could not get through. They got no sympathy from me; I must confess I gave them very little thought; but I turned to the same city, the place where I was born, and saw, not on one day of a £ 10,000,000 Exhibition, but every day, these decent women starving for 365 days in the year, and, although the newspapers are full of what happens on one day at an exhibition, they say not one word about those decent people who are in this position day in and day out.
It is a shocking, outrageous thing that today you have decent young men who can hardly live, but tomorrow, if you go to war, you will be feeding them, and clothing them, and giving them everything so that they may fight, while if they remain at home in peace-time you cannot do it. I do not ask wonders from the Minister. I do not ask him to go out in the first few days and solve a great economic problem. But this is a wealthy country, and to-morrow, if war came, it would provide three, four and five times what is now being provided. All that I ask is that this country, which can raise the money for war, should at least raise enough, not to solve the unemployment problem, because I am not too optimistic about that, but enough at least to wipe away this most beastly evil of poverty and under-feeding.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Higgs: This Debate has centred chiefly on the depressed industries, and particularly on the depressed areas. I am glad that it has, because I feel that, if we can do enough to improve the condition of those industries, and particularly if those districts which are more prosperous can contribute, the Debate will have done an enormous amount of good. I take exception, however, to the remark of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) about subsidising employers who deliberately refuse to go where the labour is. A lot of people seem to think that factories come down from heaven in the rain. They go up a road one year, and next year they find a number of factories there and think they just came there, without any forethought whatever. I can assure the Committee that that does not happen. It would be very nice if we could locate these new industries in the depressed areas, and I am sure that most employers would be willing to do it. It is said that they will not do it for their own selfish reasons, but that is not so. The origin of some of our greatest factories has been a garret shop. A fellow who thought he knew something about it found that he did. He started, and was one of the humble people for the first few years. His industry ultimately grew larger, he had to move to larger premises, and obviously he would select a locality as near to his original surroundings as he could.

The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): I hope the hon. Member will relate his remarks to the subject that is before the Committee. At present he is rather far from it.

Mr. Higgs: I accept your Ruling. I consider that the unemployed in this country are catered for as well as in any country in the world. I do not say that they are catered for as well as they might be; there are defects in the law, and it is our duty to correct them as much as possible. But we cannot go to the ex tent of saddling industry with consider ably more expense than it has to bear at the present moment. This country at the present moment is as good as any country in the world for the production of goods, and we have to keep it in that position if we are to maintain our over seas trade. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street said that the Minister was too mentally lazy to face the solution. With all due respect to hon. Members opposite, and to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street in particular, I did not hear during his speech one constructive suggestion with reference to the problems he was discussing. He spoke for some half or three-quarters of an hour, and I listened intently for some constructive suggestion that might contribute to a solution of our present difficulties—

Mr. Lawson: From time to time we have put before the House a very full programmed for dealing with these problems, but I was limited in dealing with them today because it would have involved legislation.

Mr. Higgs: Then what is the use of condemning the action that the Government have taken during the last 12 months, or are proceeding with under this Vote? Employment Exchanges have been referred to. I think the Government are doing exceedingly good work by transferring people from areas where work is slack to areas where work is brisk. I consider that, if the Employment Exchanges were used more for that purpose than for finding employment for people in their own locality, the money would be far better spent. The transference of the people is the solution of this problem, and the exchanges have done an enormous amount of good in that direction. Recently I asked a question in the House as to the cost of filling

each vacancy by the Employment Exchanges. Unfortunately, I could not have a reply, but I believe that these vacancies would be filled far more cheaply by advertisement in the local Press for the local purpose, and that the exchanges should concentrate more upon transferring labor to considerable distances where the individual is not capable of doing it himself.

Mr. Silverman: Would the hon. Member inform the Committee where he would propose to transfer the 1,750,000 unemployed?

Mr. Higgs: I am not suggesting that 1,750,000 could be transferred; I am suggesting that the problem could be somewhat eased, and I believe I am right in saying that we in Birmingham will be very pleased to see more labor of the right character in our district than we have at the present moment. We should be very pleased to see people transferred from semi-depressed areas like Glasgow or South Wales if the right labor is there.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Does the hon. Member know that in Birmingham tonight there are 30,012 people unemployed? That is the Ministry of Labor's own figure.

Mr. Higgs: Oh, yes; I qualified what I said. I said that we wanted skilled labor, that particular labor of which we are so short at the present time. I do not dispute that there are 30,000 unemployed. I do not know what proportion the 30,000 is of our working population, but I think it is lower than the proportion of unemployed throughout the country; and it does not consist of skilled men.
I do not know whether I shall be called to order again, but I want to refer to the King's Roll. That has been in existence for 20 years, and over the whole of that period the employer who wished to qualify must have had the necessary quota of ex-service men among his employs. But obviously the number of ex-service men available has been considerably reduced in later years; and I think the time has come when some other form of labor should be accepted, to enable an employer to qualify, such as men who are permitted to have two weeks' service with the Colors, with the employer making up their salaries to the full amount during that time, plus a


week's holiday with pay. That would encourage recruiting considerably, and would ease the situation created by the shortage of ex-service men. We might also allow employers to qualify by employing men discharged from the Colors. Something of this sort will have to be done if the employer is to be enabled to maintain his 5 per cent. quota. The hon. Member for Sedge field (Mr. Leslie) referred to children of 14 going into factories. He said that the reason for the employer wanting them was so that he might have cheap labor. I do not believe that that is true. Children of 14 are of little use in factory work. As long as parents are prepared to keep their children at school the children should stay there, but when the parents want them to leave they should be in a position to say whether they should leave or not at the age of 14. To the employer, children of 14 are of very little service.
The same hon. Member referred to the question of increased factory inspectors. I consider that the solution of that matter is to make the law known to the employer and the employé the employé in particular. I understand that literature is to be distributed in the factories in order that the employé can be his own inspector. I will just refer to overtime. It is exceedingly difficult to arrange for different men to take on different jobs for two or three hours extra overtime. Overtime is not a paying proposition for the employer.

Mr. J. Griffiths: That is why they have it.

Mr. Higgs: Overtime has to be paid at higher rates, and the employer would do his best to reduce it for that reason; but I do not see how it is to be eliminated.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Daggar: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has made a nice, but rather nervous defense of a rotten case. He made a statement that, in his opinion, the unemployed were well catered for in this country. If he will do me the honor of remaining here until I have completed my speech, I will endeavor to disabuse his mind. He took exception to my hon. Friend who opened this Debate referring to the Minister of Labour as being mentally lazy. I do not know whether that will be accepted by every Member of this Committee but I will draw the hon. Member's attention to a passage in a

newspaper which does not exist to propagate the views we hold on these benches. I am not a regular reader of that periodical. It is the "Daily Mirror." In that paper I read something with regard to the capacity of the Minister of Labor. The writer of the article stated that he was the "Minister of no Labor," "the man with the loudest voice in the House, and the least to say." The article went on to observe:
The shattering roar that results when Mr. Brown speaks is not a recent development. When he was 13 and was watching the Torque lifeboat being launched, he could shout ' Ship ahoy ' louder than any member of the crew. He still shouts ' Ship ahoy,' but he never goes to the rescue. He is too. Satisfied, this man. He finds it necessary to stand back and say: 'I can see for months ahead the rising tide of employment and a diminishing of unemployment.' 
That is not an extract from a Socialist newspaper. I intend to deal with the recent decision of the Unemployment Assistance Board which was referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary in a much more coherent speech than the recent statement by the Minister, which reminded me of the old song, "The Patchwork Quilt." The hon. Gentleman did not defend the decision of the Unemployment Assistance Board in deciding to discontinue the allowances which were instituted last year. I want to speak for the unemployed in my division; and I think I have authority to speak not only for all the unemployed in South Wales but for the unemployed miners throughout Great Britain. They do not want doles or allowances from the Board, but employment. If evidence of that is wanted, I need only say that in the last seven years in my division, over 10,000 people left in order to secure employment elsewhere.
We contend that it is much cheaper— much more economical, to use the language of the capitalist— to erect new factories in the distressed areas than to transfer the unemployed from these areas to parts of England where, in the event of war, it would cost the country millions of pounds to give those people a measure of security. The hon. Member talked about factories not dropping from heaven. Most of us know that, but I would draw his attention to a publication issued under the auspices of the Board of Trade, in which he will find that the reasons given by owners of factories in 25 instances in the last two years as to why they erected


factories in London instead of the distressed areas, was that the factories were in close proximity to their own residences.
I would like to know when the Government propose to deal decently with the unemployed men and women, and I would direct the attention of the Committee to the following Resolution, a copy of which has been sent not only to the Prime Minister, but also to the Minister of Labor himself, submitted by the Executive Council of the South Wales Miners' Federation.
 This Council, representing 120,000 members and their families, protests most emphatically against the assumption of the Unemployment Assistance Board and the Minister of Labor, as announced in the House of Commons, that the cost of living has so materially decreased as to justify a reduction in the already inadequate allowances received by the unemployed. It calls attention to the fact that in April, 1935, the Ministry of Labor cost of living figure was 139, whereas in 1938 the figure was 154—an increase of 15 points.
These variations in the index figure of the cost of living are published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette, while the Minister of Labor himself on 12th May stated, in reply to a question, that the figure had dropped from 146 in November to 137 in April. I find that the figure was 160 in November last, and in April of this year it was 154. He gave the correct figure for some reason or other on 9th May.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that one figure refers to the cost of living in general and the other to food only.

Mr. Daggar: I think that the Minister had that in mind, but whether he had it in mind or not, there is no statement in the Parliamentary Debates which justifies the assumption that he had in mind food and not all the items included in the general cost of living. He gave that figure in order to justify the recent decision of the Unemployment Assistance Board to discontinue the winter allowance. After listening to that statement of the Minister of Labour on that day, I was reminded of another which he had previously made from this side of the Chamber. On that occasion he was referring to an article contributed to the "Daily Mail" by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), and he criticised the article on the ground that the writer did not

define what he meant by "proved primary needs." Then the Minister of Labour asked:
 What are they? The main benefit is 17s. per week. I think it would be a good thing for all Members of this House to visit the homes of the unemployed and talk to them about that benefit. I speak with some feeling, because I happen to know how difficult it was to live on 30s. per week in 1913, and it is much harder now.
That observation was made by the Minister of Labor on 22nd June, 1931, when the cost of living figure was 145. The figure in March of this year was 156 and in April 154, or an advance of nine points since 1931. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded:
 Sentiment is irrelevant here, because unless in this House any hon. Member is prepared honestly to get up and say here what he will say anywhere else, that he means to save money out of the fund by cutting down the benefit, that is a kind of argument that is founded on dishonesty, and cannot stand." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1931; col. 98, Vol. 254.]
I am reminded of the time many years ago when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Car Narvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) held very high office in this country, and when, as a member of a deputation we were authorized to state the case on behalf of the people as miners' representatives. The right hon. Gentleman replied to all members of the deputation except one, to which gentleman he said: "I do not propose to reply to the observations which you have made this afternoon because you replied to your own speech in another which you made three weeks ago." That is true of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labor. He answered himself in 1938. Out of the mouth of an ex-Liberal an ex-Liberal is answered; a political renegade destroys himself. The attitude of the right hon. Gentleman on the question of allowances to the unemployed is not only, in my opinion, dishonest, but is one of sheer hyprocrisy. There is no wonder that in my area the observation was made to me last Sunday, at the close of a meeting, that he was earnest on Sundays, and Brown on every other day in the week. A tax of 2d. per lb. has been imposed upon tea, and incidentally, I deny the belief expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that such an imposition will be borne "with a willingness and even a pride in the humblest homes" of the unemployed in this country.
I cannot really understand the Government's treatment of the unemployed, Have not the unemployed been persecuted sufficiently already by the Government? I would ask the hon. Gentleman, who talks about the unemployed being catered for, whether he knows that from November, 1931, to January, 1935, as a result of the imposition of the means test, the unemployed in this country have been robbed— there is no other word for it—of £ 45,000,000, which is at the rate of £ 15,000,000 a year. The robbery having been £ 45,000,000 to 1935, it means that there have been two years since in respect of which must be added another £ 30,000,000, so that by the means test alone the unemployed in this country have been robbed by the present Government and the previous Government of no less than £ 75,000,000. If the cuts in standard benefit and the increase in contributions of the unemployed are taken into consideration, we have to add another £ 50,000,000 saved by the legislation of the Government, which gives the incredible total of the robbery of the unemployed of £ 125,000,000.
I will give the Committee an instance of what I will describe, for there is no other substitute in the English language, as Tory meanness, and that also is defended by the Liberal renegade who is paid £ 96 per week to undertake a task which a Tory Minister refused. A friend came to my house the other night and told me that he was in receipt of standard benefit. As the result of having a son who required special nourishment he had to go to the local officer of the Unemployment Assistance Board, and on production of a medical certificate he was given 4s. extra. As hon. Members know, a Bill was introduced to increase dependants' allowances, under which the allowance to the wife was increased from 9s. to 10s. a week if the husband was in receipt of standard benefit, as this man was. Hon. Members will be surprised to know that when he went to the Board for the 4s. they reduced it, because his wife had received an extra 1s. a week as dependant's allowance—a special nourishment allowance to 3s. instead of 4s. He produced another medical certificate on the 10th of this month and he received the following note from the office of the Unemployment Assistance Board:
 Your weekly allowance has included an amount of 2s. 6d. which was added specially

to meet the increased expenses of living in your case during the winter months. Now that the winter is over it has been found necessary to review your allowance and withdraw the special addition.
The result is that the whole of the 3s. has been denied to the man. I ask the Minister, what connection is there between refusing to continue payment of the winter allowance and the discontinuance of an allowance given in virtue of the applicant having a sick child? That is not an isolated case. Here is another case out of many. A person who lives in my division made an application to the Board for an allowance. It was necessary for the local officer to make two assessments, one for the son and another for the father, and although a medical certificate was produced in order to obtain an additional allowance for the wife, who is practically an invalid, the 2s. 6d. per week nourishment for the wife has been withdrawn. There is another case of a man who was in receipt of 26s. per week. For some reason or other he was notified that the officer had decided to reduce that amount to 24s., and before I came to the House at the beginning of this week he had another message to say that the 24s. was to be further reduced to 22s.
It is useless for the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister to justify such a reduction on the ground that circumstances have changed. No circumstances can change in a period of three weeks to justify a reduction first to 24s. and then to 22s. We have at the local offices a new officer who is probably responsible for these variations and changes, due to the fact perhaps that he is overflowing with zeal for the sympathetic administration of the rules of the Board. He has scant regard for medical certificates produced by applicants from their own medical advisers. He wants to create a name for himself and to establish himself in that area. I want to assure him that if I can be of any assistance—I have asked for particulars of his attitude towards applicants —I shall be glad to do what I can by publicity in this House to assist in his establishment at Abertillery.
The Board and the Minister of Labor justify the action of withdrawing the winter allowance because of an alleged reduction in the cost of living, and the Minister does so upon figures which he does not consider reliable and which he says are not accurate. It is a very


strange feature of this action of the Board that when the Board decided to increase some of the allowances in October last year the index figure of the cost of living was 158, or seven points above the lowest figure of 151 reached in that year. In April of this year the figure was 154. That means that because of the increase in the cost of living by seven points the winter allowance was given, but when that figure was reduced by four points the allowance is withdrawn. Let me apply another test. For the moment I ignore the figure 100 which represents the index figure for 1914. I find that the average index figure for the nine months preceding October of last year was 52.5, but the average figure for the seven months, including October and subsequent to that year, was 578·5 Yet in face of those facts the Unemployment Assistance Board decided to withdraw the winter allowance.
When discussing this issue we are told either that the rise in the cost of living is small or that the cost has been considerably reduced. We have already been informed of the reduction which has taken place since last November. While we are expected to accept these figures supplied by the Minister of Labour I much prefer to accept the costs as disclosed in the budget of a housewife, and that does not show such a considerable reduction. Further, here is a statement contained in the "News Chronicle" of yesterday, which supports my contention. It is under the heading, "The Club to cost more."
The Constitutional Club, famous centre of Tory activity, is threatening its member with a two-guinea increase in subscriptions. One reason, writes a ' News Chronicle ' reporter, is the rise in prices which the Government was denying a short time ago. Another reason is the recent inclusion of club servants in the unemployment insurance scheme. This will cost the Constitutional Club £450 a year. Members have been given these reasons in a circular issued by the Chairman, Sir Patrick Hannon, M.P.
In this connection I prefer to accept the statement of the Tory Club, as it is more in accordance with those made to me by the wives of unemployed men than the statements made either by the Minister of Labour or the Unemployment Assistance Board. There is another phase of this question which deserves some notice. The dependants' benefit to those

men in receipt of standard benefit has been increased from 9s. to 10s. per week, but to those individuals who need most, because of long periods of unemployment, the small allowance has been reduced. "From him that hath shall be taken away," might be an appropriate text for the Minister of Labour's next sermon.
Let me make, in connection with this point, an observation that may appeal to the Minister. In a part of my division a Sunday School demonstration is held every Whit Monday and the children, as one might imagine, look forward to this event. Proud parents endeavour to make their children presentable by the purchase of suitable clothes, and as many of them are unemployed they have to make preparations some months before that date. That pleasure, to my own personal knowledge, will now be denied to many children because of the action of the Unemployment Assistance Board in withdrawing the winter allowance or refusing to continue it. I hope that such treatment will give the Minister of Labour the satisfaction he deserves. No wonder we read this comment in a newspaper, not a Socialist paper:
 The first necessity to its performance is that the Labour Minister should be given a change of air … Mr. Brown has not even a sense of the fitness of things. It was only the other day that he preached a sermon on the doorstep of a derelict area from the text ' Feed my sheep '.
I feel convinced that the attitude of the Government towards the unemployed does not meet with the approval of the people of this country. The Labour Government was criticised for borrowing £85,000,000 to maintain the unemployed. This Government can borrow £400,000,000 to provide the means for destroying life. It can also lose £100,000,000 in a deal with Ireland, and it can also provide £70,000,000 to distribute among 3,789 royalty owners who have been permitted to rob the mining industry in the last 20 years of no less a sum than £120,000,000. It now deprives the unemployed man or woman of 2s. or 3s. a week on the ground that the winter months are passed, and that it is now May and not November.
Finally, I consider it a scandal that the Government should continue the administration of the means test, which reduces the admittedly insufficient allowance of 17s. a week in the case of an


unemployed single man to 15s., 12s. and, in many cases within my knowledge, to a miserable 10s. a week, and that they should withdraw the winter allowance because of an alleged reduction in the cost of living. I have little time for an index figure which is based upon calculations made 33 years ago. If the allowances had been adequate at any time, I could have understood the action of the Unemployment Assistance Board, but such allowances were never considered adequate by hon. Members, irrespective of party, or by any decent person in the country.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he spoke with feeling in June, 1931. So do we in May, 1938. I want to say, in connection with the administration of the Unemployment Assistance Board's Regulations, that the Minister, in defence of them, is performing a duty that no self-respecting Tory would undertake. All the Government's work, such as the imposition of the tax on tea, and the increase in the Income Tax, has been undertaken by renegade members of the Liberal Party. The Ministers responsible for the Army, the Navy and the Air Force are desirous of securing assistance to achieve superiority in those Forces. Some of those individuals who are now unemployed and who have experienced this mean treatment from the Government are beginning to say, "You cannot expect our assistance to defend your property unless you show a desire to defend the unemployed men and women." That can be done only by abolishing the means test. Until that is achieved, cease the "cuts" and continue the winter allowance.

Mr. Lawson: On a point of Order, Colonel Clifton Brown. Is it not the Government's business on a Supply Day to keep hon. Members present so that Supply can be considered? I draw your attention to the fact that there are only three Members on the Government Benches.

The Temporary Chaiman: That is not a point of Order. What the Government does is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Lawson: I would draw the attention of the Minister of Labour to the fact that there are only three Members present on the Government Benches. Will he not get some Members in?

8.59 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I wish to draw attention to two points, one of them of minor importance and the other of greater importance. The minor point has reference to training centres, which are, of course, miniature workshops. There are in these centres all the ordinary risks of accidents, but by reason of the fact that no wages are paid and that the relationship of master and servant does not exist, the Workmen's Compensation Act does not apply. There are throughout the country cases of serious and permanent injury where the trainee has no access to the courts and, as far as one can gather, no legal rights or remedies. I ask the Minister of Labour to give attention to this matter. I know of one case where an accident to a man in such a workshop resulted in the loss of an eye. It is true that the Minister ex gratia offers to make payments, but where there is a difference of opinion, as very frequently there must be, about the proposed payment, there is no external authority to which an appeal can be made. The Minister is judge in his own case. He is entitled to say, if a person does not like the offer, "You may take it or leave it; you have no remedy; we will not submit to arbitration of any kind." Unless the person concerned accepts the offer, he has to go through his working life suffering from an incapacity for which, if he had incurred it in ordinary life, would have resulted in his receiving some compensation. I hope that the Minister will find some means of placing that matter on a proper footing, so that he will not be judge in his own case, and so that the case will be submitted to the arbitration of an impartial authority. The second point which I wish to raise is of wider importance, and is one on which the Minister has frequently expressed sympathy. The right hon. Gentleman expresses sympathy on a good many things. I am one of those who believe that it is genuine sympathy.

Mr. Gallacher: Never.

Mr. Silverman: Whether it be or not, I do not see why the hon. Member for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam) should be amused. I should have thought that, with his usual generosity and charitable spirit, he would have supported me in that statement, but if he doubts it, hon. Members on these benches may be forgiven for doubting it.


However, I think the sympathy which the right hon. Gentleman expresses is genuine, but whether it be genuine or not, sympathy is a very poor thing for a person to live on. The problem to which I want to draw attention is that of weavers in Lancashire who are underemployed and who are not entitled to any unemployment benefit or public assistance. I will explain how that position arises. The method of employment in the cotton industry has come to be based upon a system of piece rates by which the wages of a weaver depend upon the earnings of the looms of which he is in charge. The standard number of looms per weaver recognised in the industry is four, and if a weaver is employed for 48 hours a week on four looms, and if the looms are working full time, his wages amount, on the average, to between 30s. and 33s. a week. Those weavers are the lucky ones, the highly skilled cotton operatives working full time on the full standard of four looms. But it happens throughout the Lancashire weaving industry at the present time that, although a weaver is employed in a factory for 48 hours a week, for a considerable portion of that time some, or even all, of the four looms of which he is in charge are idle. It may be that only one is idle, it may be that two are idle, and frequently three are idle, and then if he is dependent upon what he can earn by the working of his one loom, his earnings per week will be, on an average, something like 8s. or 8s. 6d. a week.
The other day I heard of the case of a man of 50 years of age who had spent no less than 36 years working in a mill. Last week two of his four looms were idle. On the remaining two he earned 7s. 8d. and 7s. 7d. respectively. I want the Committee to appreciate the fact that, at the end of a full 48-hour week, all he had to draw was 15s. 3d., but even this amount was subject to certain deductions. He had to pay 1s. 8d. for insurance; 6d. as his contribution towards the cleaning of the mill and a hospital contribution of 1d. So, this worker of 50 years of age, who has been working in the mill for 36 years, brings home at the end of a 48-hour week earnings to the amount of 13s.—and he has to maintain a wife. To complete the story, I may mention that his rent is 8s. 6d. It

is not a high rent, but it is a large part of 13s.
I have not quoted this case because I allege that it is typical of everybody in the industry. Nor is it an exceptional case in itself. The Minister knows that it could be multiplied by hundreds, and indeed by thousands in Lancashire. I would like to give some further figures, not from my own constituency but from small neighbouring towns. In a little place called Church there are 1,200 weavers. The standard number of looms is four, but only 20 per cent. of them have four looms fully working; 60 per cent. have only three looms working and the remaining 20 per cent. have only two or one working. The average wage, with four looms working, is between 30s. and 33s. per week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Adult rate?"] Yes, that is the adult rate. At another place, Rishton, there are 600 weavers, and last week only 15 per cent. of them had all four looms working, while 55 per cent. had three looms working, and 30 per cent. had only two looms or one loom working. That meant that they were earning 16s. or less, subject to deductions, for a 48-hour week.
Remember Lancashire is not a Special Area. It has none of those much-vaunted advantages which are supposed to be enjoyed by South Wales and Durham and parts of Scotland. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who wants them?"] I have not observed that anybody is very grateful for them, or that they appear to have benefited those areas very much, but I am not qualified to judge on that question. All I am pointing out is that Lancashire, where the conditions are as I have described, is not regarded by the Government as one of the areas entitled to such advantages as there may be in this legislation. I ask the Minister, is it not time some arrangement was made by which these people, the most highly-skilled operatives of their type in the world, upon whom for generations the prosperity of the country depended, and who, even to-day, are responsible for production in what is still the chief exporting industry, should no longer be allowed to-go home at the end of a 48-hour week with substantially less than they would get from the Unemployment Assistance Board or from the public assistance committee? I say it is a public scandal that the present state of things should have


gone on so long and that no remedy for it should yet have been found.
As I say, I do not question the genuineness of the Minister's sympathy. I know he has received deputations upon this matter, and he will not accuse me of any breach of confidence if I reveal that he has expressed the opinion that, of all the delegations which have presented special grievances to him, in connection with the administration of this Act, no delegation has impressed him more than that which called his attention to the tragic state of affairs which I have described. But the Minister has been sympathetic for a long time. I know the problem is difficult. It is not easy to find a remedy, but I refuse to believe that it passes the wit of man to find some method of securing for these people, and for all workers in industry, some modest measure of justice. Much eloquence has been used to call attention to the tragic conditions of, say, the miners. I do not complain of that fact. Those who represent the miners have done an enormously valuable piece of social work in the last 10 or 15 years, and accomplished much good for their people. But, leaving aside the exceptional danger, the risk to life and limb involved in the mining industry which, of course, is greater than in any other industry, and certainly greater than in the textile industry, I say that the condition of the weavers is much worse than the condition of the miners has ever been, and certainly much worse than the condition of the miners to-day.
However difficult the problem may be, it should not be beyond the wit and ingenuity of man to devise some method of raising the minimum wage or, where the minimum wage falls substantially below what would be paid to these people if they were not working at all, of making up the balance. I rejoice to see that supporters of the Government, having satisfied their own needs, have now come back into the Chamber and are prepared to listen to some account of the unsatisfied needs of other people. The problem of poverty is the only thing that matters in politics. It is the only thing that keeps me interested in politics, and it is the only reason why the party to which I have the honour to belong came into existence. If you can solve that problem otherwise than in the way we advise, do so by all means, and you will hear no more from us. The House is filled to overflowing when other

questions are discussed. All those questions, including international problems, will disappear if the problem of poverty is solved. I appeal to the Minister again to go into the question of under-employment in Lancashire and to see whether he cannot do something to make life more tolerable for these people, who are the salt of the earth.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) upon making out such a strong case on behalf of the underpaid and underworked men in the cotton industry. I want to draw attention to the Unemployment Assistance Board and its scales, and to-inquire who are the people who are unfortunate enough to have to submit to the regulations of the Unemployment Assistance Board. These people, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), in quoting from the latest report of the Board, are decent people like ourselves. The generality of the applicants are ordinary men; they are neither high nor low, but ordinary, average, decent citizens of no mean country. They have worked a lifetime, although there are many who have been refused the possibility of work—young men who have not yet tasted the discipline of labour. They are the Ishmaels of modern industry, cast out or normal society and citizenship. They are suffering from poverty through no fault of their own. There are not just a few, but 600,000 of them, and over 30,000 are in my own county of Durham.
Under the present system it may be-the lot of any employed person shortly to be thrown up with the flotsam and jetsam of humanity. During the War these people were hailed as bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh; hailed as heroes who were going to defend the nation in time of danger. Now they are counted as pariahs of poverty. While it is true that they are passing through great tribulation, we cannot say of them that they shall hunger no more, because they are hungering now every day, not only bodily, but, what is more important, mentally as well. What crime have these people committed that they deserve such rigid punishment? If they had broken the laws of the land they would have received greater attention from the State than they are receiv-


ing now as unemployed, for if they had gone to prison it would have cost the State more to keep them than the State is prepared to give them when they have broken no law. The State, however, has broken the greatest law of all—the law of humanity—by the scurvy treatment it meets out to them. The only thing that can be said of them is that they are superfluous to modern economic society. They should never have been born. They are in poverty because they live. But poverty unearned and undeserved is no crime. It is the system which condemns people to poverty. It is a criminal system.
What is the qualification of people to receive unemployment assistance? The only qualification is that they must be extremely poor. They may be supremely honest, but they have to be extremely poor and not only that, but they have to declare their destitution to the world. They have to parade their poverty in the public eye. I was alarmed as I listened to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) when he referred to that secret form, which is called Form 6 (B), and I hope we shall hear more about it from the Minister. What is the amount of assistance which these people receive? Remember their respectability. They are no different in character, says the report, from the ordinary person, but they are different in the treatment they receive. Scrutinise from the regulations the valuation that is placed on the lives of these people. I am not great at figures. I used to be a teacher and considered myself a mathematician, but I have friends on this side and there are hon. Members on the other side who could beat me to a frazzle so far as handling figures is concerned. There are, however, one or two figures to which I propose to refer.
A man who is a householder receives under the Regulations 16s. a week, and by various adjustments, some of which are beyond my comprehension, it is whittled down, after rent is allowed, to 12s. a week. On that he has to live and obtain food, clothing, power and light and, if there is anything left, enjoyment. I have in my division an ex-service man who lives alone, and who served four years at the front. He has 15s. a week under this scheme and he has something deducted because his rent is below one-quarter of the standard rate. There was

a man in my division not many weeks ago who, rather than face the exposure before a tribunal under the Unemployment Assistance Board, committed suicide. That man is a martyr to the system of society under which we are living. I had a case of a woman who received 15s. a week and whose rent adjustment left her with 11s. She received 4s. for her child. A pint of milk alone for the child would cost 1s. 9d. and bread 1s. 7d., which left only 9d. for all the other things to keep the child in decency and comfort. One hon. Member said something about the King's Roll. All that concerns these people is a good beef roll or a sausage roll.
I often wonder how long the worker is going to stand this low valuation which is placed on human life. I am amazed at the docility of the British worker. In the face of the enemy he is a warrior bold, in the face of industrial danger, as in the recent mine explosion, he is a veritable giant, yet when he is faced by poverty in a land of plenty which he has created, he is as docile as a dove. Yet material wealth is the result of the work of his hands and brains. When I was a boy we used to talk about the "five alls"—
 The king rules over all.
The parson prays for all.
The lawyer pleads for all.
The soldier fights for all.
But the worker pays for all.
Problems have been solved by his skill and intelligence and invention in the heavens above, in the earth beneath and in the waters under the earth. In the heavens above there has been the conquest of the problems of the air; in the earth beneath, the conquest of transport, both rail and motor; in the waters under the earth, conquest by the submarine. There is no need for the worker to suffer under the miserable means test and the ridiculous regulations of the Assistance Board. He has the power and the ability to construct a wiser order of society.

Mr. H. G. Williams: On a point of Order. I understand that even in this optimistic world you cannot construct a new social order without legislation. I suggest that on a Supply Day that might be just on the edge of being out of order.

Mr. Sexton: The deadening effect of unemployment, especially of long spells, is to make men indifferent and to make them used to wretched conditions. I


could refer to some of the wretched conditions contained in the first report of the Unemployment Assistance Board. There are some most appalling stories told there, but I will not harrow the feelings of the Committee by quoting any, though I had intended to refer to one case in England, one in Wales and one in Scotland. I want to refer to the long period, because it is the greatest tragedy of all, this so-called hard core of unemployment which has lasted a long time. People who are brought to penury and have become reconciled to redundancy become accustomed to their agony. Lord Byron gave an excellent illustration of the apathy resulting from the oppression in "The Prisoner of Chillon," who had been fastened up with chains for years. He says:
 At last men came to set me free.
I asked not why, I recked not where.
It was at length the same to me
Fettered or fetterless to be.
I learnt to love despair.
In the Special Areas men have learnt to love despair. It is no use saying they do not care about work. It is because despair has got hold of them. In the same poem:
 My very chains and I grew friends.
So much a long communion tends
To make us what we are, even I
Regained my freedom with a sigh.
So in the Special Areas—the bitter irony of it!—men have grown to be friends even with their chains. The latest humiliation of the unemployed by the Unemployment Assistance Board is the reduction of the winter allowance, which itself was far too low. I suppose that applicants for assistance will now be expected to believe that the winter of their discontent has been
 Made glorious summer by this sun of York.
It is a funny way of the winter of discontent becoming glorious summer when they are receiving a reduction. What is the remedy for all this? What the Government can do is only a palliative. They could increase the assistance, but it is only ambulance work after all—picking up the wounded and distressed of the industrial world. Sir Malcolm Stewart in his first report could solve the problem because he pointed to certain fundamentals. I hope the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) will not call me to order if I suggest that for

a final solution this Government must go. In its place we want a Government which will increase production and employ more people. We want a Government which will reduce the working life of juveniles, take the old people out, and absorb more of the unemployed, for all else is merely tinkering with the question and putting a treacle plaster on a cancer. Having said what I have said, it is the inadequacy of the whole system of unemployment assistance and the whole present system of society which has compelled me to speak to-night.

The Deputy Chairman (Captain Bourne): Mr. Herbert Williams.

Mr. J. Griffiths: On a point of Order. Days of this kind are the only opportunity for Members to raise administrative problems which affect their constituents. By an unfortunate circumstance the Ministry of Labour day is of particular interest to us. May I ask what assistance you can give us to prevent Members absenting themselves from the House from a quarter to 4 until 9 o'clock and robbing others of the opportunity of raising matters of supreme importance to their constituents?

The Deputy-Chairman: I can offer the hon. Member no assistance. I do my best to call on Members in all quarters of the Committee so as to get expressions of opinion from every part of it. If hon. Members would curtail their speeches it would make my task very much easier.

Mr. S. O. Davies: We all agree that curtailment of speeches would be far more helpful, but surely some contribution can be made to the good spirit and well-being of the House if the insolence of some who walk into the House—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order.

Mr. Leonard: I think that Mr. Speaker on one occasion, in dealing with a matter similar to this, indicated that it would be proper to conduct debate on a cut-and-thrust basis.

The Deputy-Chairman: I should welcome more cut and thrust.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I do not often seek to intervene in a Debate when I have not been present for a substantial period. It is true that I have not been in the Chamber for very long since—

Mr. Gallacher: Where have you been?

Mr. Williams: In the dining room, having a meal, the same as a good many others. I came in and listened to part of one speech. When it was concluded I think seven Members opposite rose to speak and no one on this side. I listened to a speech containing a number of statements on which I wish to comment. It did not seem to me entirely inappropriate that I should follow the example of Members of all parties, more particularly right hon. Members, who blow in, blow off, and blow out.

Mr. Ede: Mind you do not blow up.

Mr. Williams: It is only people of the Red variety who blow up, because they are internally self-explosive. We have had this amusing interlude of attempting to suppress all discussion except that which comes from the other side, some of which was on the verge of being disorderly, because you cannot reconstruct the universe on a Supply Day, however desirable or undesirable it may be, and there is nothing very improper in drawing attention to that fact. I am glad that the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Sexton) was called, because he had taken great care in the preparation of his speech, even though I am satisfied from some of the phrases that it was not entirely original, that his constituents have often heard it before and will frequently hear it in future, and not only his constituents but the constituents of nearly all hon. Members opposite, because the real trouble is that they have only one speech which they present with variations on a great many occasions. It is one of the sad things in this life that you do not solve a problem by inventing a phrase. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] I rejoice that hon. Members opposite cheer that, because the chief contribution they have made to invention has been the invention of phrases.
The hon. Member referred to the scurvy treatment meted out to those in receipt of unemployment assistance. There is no basis of comparison between unemployment assistance under this Government and any previous Government, because unemployment assistance only came into being under the provisions of the Unemployment Act, and there is no past test. The past test, of course, must be in respect of forms of assistance, which

passed under many titles—uncovenanted benefit was one of them—given to people who have lost all their insurance rights I am going to suggest without the faintest hesitation that my right hon. Friend the Minister, though I do not agree with all his views, is at this moment treating the man or woman who has exhausted his or her insurance rights with a degree of generosity which would have amazed the House of Commons of 1924 and amazed the House of Commons between June, 1929, and August, 1931.

Mr. T. Smith: Surely the hon. Member must recall that when we had transitional payments some of the bigger authorities gave more than is being given under unemployment assistance.

Mr. Williams: Let us take the Debates which took place in 1924—I was not then a Member of the House—on what was called, I think, the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill, introduced by a right hon. Gentleman for whom I have great affection, though we differ, Mr. Tom Shaw. Mr. Shaw presented a Bill proposing certain scales of benefit. We can discuss scales of benefit in a Debate of this kind, because under the present system they are a matter of administration and not of legislation, and I think I am in order. Mr. Shaw resisted, as he was right to resist in the existing circumstances, a Motion that the benefit in respect of a child should be 3s. instead of 2s. I just mention that. There are hon. Members opposite who differed from the Government which they ordinarily supported and went into the Lobby against it. The Government of that time said, "We cannot afford this," an unpleasant thing to say; but they did it, and the Socialist Ministers then sitting on the Treasury Bench, asked their followers to support them in the Lobby upon that issue.
All I say is, examine the present scales of benefit—there are a whole lot of new features introduced, I agree—and compare them with those which a Socialist Government proposed in 1924, taking into account that between 1924 and to-day the price of commodities as a whole has fallen substantially. There have been fluctuations, but there is no question that the cost of living to-day, however you test it, is substantially below that of 1924. Hon. Members who in 1924 made passionate


speeches, full of resounding phrases, about how they would look after the poor derelicts of the capitalist system were at that time proposing terms far less generous than are now being accorded under administrative methods. Therefore I say their attitude to-day is not very generous. I have not the slightest doubt that when the hon. Member for Barnard Castle speaks in his constituency all those resounding phrases will draw cheers, but they do not solve a problem.

Mr. MacLaren: What is the solution?

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Member asks me what is the solution of every problem, to be quite honest, and not being a Labour Member, I say that I do not know. If I am a Labour Member I produce a magnificent phrase which means nothing, and the people go home gratefully comforted in a spiritual sense, but I have not put any butter on their bread. When opportunities arise to support Measures which will in fact provide employment I have not observed any startling rush of hon. Members opposite to support them. I cannot think of any proposal brought forward by hon. or right hon. Members opposite in recent times which would have put anybody in a job.

Miss Wilkinson: What about the steel works at Jarrow?

Mr. Williams: As the hon. Lady is not unaware, the county which I happen to represent has not been too unsympathetic towards the constituency which she represents. [Interruption.] I am not going to run away from the point, but I will approach it in my own way. I think she has had rather a rough deal, but whether it be fortunate or unfortunate the steel industry has not yet been nationalised, and as far as I can make out the default has not been a default which has lain primarily with His Majesty's Ministers. Whether a particular firm should or should not open a steel works in Jarrow, though it may be a subject for questions in this House, cannot, so far as I can see, be a question of legislation, and I was dealing with proposals which we might have supported. I have been very much disappointed that there have been so few of them. Having addressed those remarks to hon. and right hon. Members opposite—

Mr. Ede: You should address the Chair.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member for Surrey and South Shields (Mr. Ede), if I may so describe him, will no doubt make an eloquent speech later, and I always like listening to him, but in the meantime, perhaps, he will allow me to say something which I am certain he will applaud. Having tried to say a few words in support of the right hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), may I say a few words in kindly criticism? His Majesty's Government must not be complacent at this moment. I think that this country, and not alone this country but what I will call the white world—it is not the most convenient phrase, but it is still true that the countries substantially inhabited by white people dominate the world in the economic sense—is facing a new crisis. We have to recognise that position.
I must be careful in commenting upon the economic policy of another country, but I am not too much impressed with the economic policy of the United States at this moment. It is true that mankind has no economic memory. We seem to forget entirely what happened 10 years ago. We all make mistakes, irrespective of our politics, but it is folly not to try to learn from the mistakes which we have made in the past. The United States passed through a grave crisis. They sought to solve that crisis by the method of public works; though that does not describe all their activities, it is a phrase which covers nearly all of them. They attained a measure of success, but they are in a new slump, and I do not think they are going to solve the problem —they did not really solve it before—by the same methods. I do not think profligacy in public expenditure ever solves an unemployment problem. It is a palliative. It may transfer employment from one area to another.
I am not one of those who claim that rearmament, which I think is an unpleasant necessity, is of any use in the solution of our unemployment problem, and I hope that supporters of His Majesty's Government will not claim rearmament as helping the unemployment problem. All it has done is to redistribute the unemployment problem, with, possibly, the fortunate effect that has helped distressed areas at the expense of areas which were not previously distressed. The idea that the vast expenditure of public money which imposes new


burdens of rates and taxes ever solves an unemployment problem is, I am certain, a delusion, though I think that for the moment the revival of naval shipbuilding and certain other consequences have helped certain distressed areas.
Here we have the whole world, not only this country, facing a new economic crisis. I do not think it will be as bad as the last one, for this reason, that what I will call the general banking situation is much better. Throughout the world we are still in an era of what the bankers call cheap money, and I think that is a most important factor in preserving the stability of trade. All these currency and banking problems are difficult and complex. We sometimes think we know all about them, and then, later on, we find out that we do not, but I think everyone will agree that as a general proposition a low Bank rate is more likely to be stimulating to trade than a high Bank rate. We still have a low Bank rate, and I rejoice to see that in France, where they have been passing through a period of great difficulty, they have been able to reduce their Bank rate substantially. There is not now in the United States the kind of crisis that faced President Roosevelt when he first took office, namely, the bulk of the banks in the United States closed and money, so far as you could borrow it, at almost astronomical rates of interest.
These are factors which are encouraging. Nevertheless, the human mind has gone through that cyclical change. There is a period when no shock has any adverse effect upon industry— it takes about eight years to go through it—and the human mind then reaches a condition in which it is unduly responsive to any kind of economic shock, and in that term I include political shocks which have economic reactions. The occupation of Austria by Germany was probably a bad thing for world trade; the war which is now taking place between China and Japan is probably bad for world trade; the strain in Europe arising out of the civil war in Spain is probably a bad thing for European trade; but two years ago those things would not have mattered. We were in a period of optimism. Now, unfortunately, the mind of man in a general sense is in a period of pessimism. It may be that

nothing that Governments can do, nothing even that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite can do, can prevent a period of reaction, not as bad as that of 1931, but sufficiently grave to cause concern to all of us. What is the most dreadful thing that any of us can contemplate?

Mr. Leonard: On a point of Order. Without any desire to interrupt the hon. Member, I would like to ask whether this is sufficiently close to the problem which we are discussing to allow it to be introduced at this time of night, after we have been sitting all day?

The Deputy-Chairman: It appears to me that we have been taking a very broad view of the problems of the Ministry of Labour and the Unemployment Assistance Board. Anything that bears on the subject of either more or less employment is in order and has been discussed on many previous occasions, and I have heard hon. Members from all quarters of the House urge that the Minister ought to take steps to increase employment. I think that any hon. Member is entitled to point out that any steps which the Minister might take would not necessarily be successful.

Mr. Williams: I am sorry the hon. Member for the co-operative society and some part of Edinburgh—

Hon. Members: Glasgow.

Mr. Leonard: If the hon. Member had taken food, he would not have made that mistake.

Mr. J. Griffiths: You asked for it.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) says I asked for it, but I do not know what I got. I am very glad that the point of Order was raised. My own view is that it has always been wrong that this House should ever have discussed, on the Ministry of Labour Vote, the problem of diminishing unemployment. The Minister of Labour is concerned primarily with the relief of unemployment and with industrial problems of a certain special kind. The right occasion to discuss the problem of unemployment from the economic point of view should be the Board of Trade Vote, but for many years past, to my profound regret, the party opposite have always selected the Ministry of Labour


Vote as the opportunity for discussing means of relieving unemployment or diminishing it, in other words, of stimulating trade. Accordingly, if in the course of a not very long speech, the first speech that I have made on a Supply Day for many years past, I give utterance to certain views which I hold with considerable sincerity, and speak of the methods which might be adopted for the purpose of diminishing unemployment in this country, I think it ill becomes hon. Members opposite, who have always seized this occasion for the purpose of discussing causes of unemployment, should object to anybody on this side for once in a way seeking to intervene on this subject.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We have sat here for six hours, and for some two hours of that time the number of Members on the benches opposite was three, and those of us who have urgent questions to raise do not feel it right that Members opposite should come in at this time of the evening to steal time which we thought would be ours.

Mr. Williams: This is a new doctrine. It is a new form of Fascism, or Nazism, or Stalinism, that when unemployment is under discussion, only hon. Members opposite are entitled to talk.

Mr. Griffiths: We do not claim that at all. At any rate, we have been the only people sufficiently interested to have been here at all for a great deal of the time.

Mr. Williams: since I started to talk, there have been more Members present than when hon. Members opposite were talking, and the hon. Member for Llanelly cannot blame me for that. Now may I say something which I hope no one will think is sob stuff? It represents a point of view which I have often expressed in public and which I hope the Minister will take into account. He is not in a position—at least, I do not think he is—to take those administrative acts which can deal with this problem. I have indicated that the right occasion for suggesting solutions within the administrative competence of the Government is on the Board of Trade Vote or a Debate on an occasion when the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be replying, because they are the Ministers primarily concerned with economic policy. None of us must be complacent. Because from time to time we conduct our Debates in this House with

good humour and laugh even when we are discussing tragedies, it must not cause people outside to think that any of us are not very deeply in earnest when we consider the horrible problem of unemployment.
May I use this phrase? I have used it frequently outside, but never before, I think, in this House. There are at this moment about 1,750,000 people seeking employment who have not got a job. It is a horrible thing for any of us to contemplate the fact that to-morrow morning 1,750,000 people will wake up with this thought in their minds, that nobody wants them. That is the real tragedy of unemployment. We are not really concerned so much as we think with the precise scale which my right hon. Friend brings before us, because we all know in our hearts that with our system of unemployment assistance, together with the additional help that people may claim, if the need arises, from the Unemployment Assistance Board, not primarily in respect of unemployment, but for other things, nobody in this country really suffers grave hardship to-day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Not grave hardship.

Mr. Gallacher: You are speaking on a full stomach.

Mr. Williams: I am very glad that the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has a full stomach.

Mr. Gallacher: I do not use language of that kind.

Mr. Williams: I am not using language. I am speaking the truth. The average man to-day who is out of work and in receipt of unemployment assistance is, in fact, economically better off than his grandfather was when he was in full work, so great has been our economic progress. Therefore, when people ask me to weep tears of blood because people are suffering great hardships in the economic sense, because they are unemployed, I refuse to do it, but I weep tears of blood when I realise that people will wake up tomorrow morning feeling that they have no purpose in life because they are unemployed. The spiritual evil is infinitely greater than the financial evil, and I would ask hon. Members opposite to bear that in mind. The really pathetic thing which fills the letters that we get from our unemployed constituents is not


so much the economic hardship but the fact that they feel they can fulfil no purpose in this beautiful world of ours.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. G. Hall: I hardly know whether I ought to follow the argument which the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) has just advanced, because I, like my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, feel that the Committee has been treated very discourteously by hon. Members opposite during the whole of this Debate. It is an indication of the interest of Conservative Members in what is the major domestic problem with which the country is confronted at the present time. From seven o'clock until just about the time when the hon. Member for South Croydon came into the Chamber there were not more than three hon. Members sitting on the Government Benches. I can understand the attitude of my hon. Friends on this side, some of whom have been sitting here since quarter to four, representing as they do not such a constituency as that of the hon. Member for South Croydon, where the percentage of unemployment is about 3 or 5 per cent., but representing constituencies where 30 to 40 per cent. of the insured persons are unemployed. We have a real interest in this question, and I think that this serious matter ought not to be treated in the flippant way that the hon. Member for Souh Croydon treated it in his opening remarks. He referred to the unemployment allowances which are paid at the present time, but he did not attempt to justify them. There is no single Member sitting opposite who can justify the attitude of the Unemployment Assistance Board.

Mr. H. G. Williams: May I ask a question? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I gave way at least three times to hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Hall: The hon. Member referred to the Labour Government of 1924 and suggested that they opposed an increase of children's allowances from 2s. to 3s. a week. One would imagine that was the whole story. The hon. Member on occasion is very capable of putting one side of a story and forgetting the other. Let me give the other side of the story. It is true that in 1924 there was a Labour Government, a minority Government,

operating the insurance scheme. Notwithstanding the fact that we were operating the insurance scheme, there has been no occasion from 1920 until the present time when such increases were given to the unemployed as were given during that short period of the Labour Government.

Mr. Williams: May I ask a question.

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Hall: In 1924 the Minister of Labour resisted an increase in children's allowance from 2s. to 3s. a week, but at the same time he granted an aggregate increase in the allowances for husband, wife and three children of no less than 6s. a week. He granted an increase in the allowance for the husband from 15s. to 18s. a week and for the woman from 12s. to 15s. At no time since the Labour Government left office in 1924 has the allowance for the male been as high as it was when Mr. Tom Shaw granted that increase. Not only that, but prior to 1924 there was a gap of six weeks which the unemployed persons had to provide for out of their unemployment allowance. That gap was removed. The total cost of the increases granted by the Labour Government in 1924 in unemployment benefit, not that it was sufficient, by any means, amounted to not less than £10,000,000 a year.

Mr. Williams: I should like to ask the hon. Member a question. It was not only in 1924 that the Government of which he was a Member resisted the increase to 3s. for a child, but they did the same between 1929 and 1931. Is it not also the case that the aggregate benefits at the present time when the cost of living is lower, are substantially greater than the benefits which were resisted by the Labour Government in 1924 and 1929?

Mr. Hall: If one had time one could answer the hon. Member fully, but no one expected that the hon. Member was going to butt in. I promised the right hon. Gentleman that I was going to sit down at a certain time and I do not want to spend a portion of my time answering the hon. Member.

Mr. Williams: Answering my flippant observations.

Mr. Hall: I can, however, tell the hon. Member that it was his Government in


1931 which robbed the unemployed of £15,000,000 a year, that it was his Government in 1934 which divided the unemployed into two parts, and it is his Government at the present time who think that 10s. a week is sufficient for a man over 21 years of age living at home. That is what the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) supports, what the Minister supports, and what everybody else supports who supports the Minister in his attitude at the present time.
I want to deal briefly with the opening speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. I agree with him that this is no time for complacency. As the hon. Member for South Croydon rightly said, notwithstanding the fact that this Government has been in power from 1931 up till now, and although hon. Members suggest that we are passing through a boom period, no fewer than 1,750,000 people are unemployed. Yet we have seen the lack of interest which has been displayed by hon. Members on the Government side in the proceedings to-day. I come from an area which is still a Special Area. The so-called prosperity has rushed by without leaving anything in its trail in most of the Special Areas. In Wales we have almost as high a percentage of unemployment as we had two or three years ago. In Anglesey, represented by the hon. Lady (Miss Lloyd George), the average percentage of unemployment is 37, in Glamorgan it is 29, and in one area in my own division, according to the Unemployment Index—I do not know where they get the 9 per cent.—it is suggested that they have 109 per cent. of unemployment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Very funny."] It may be peculiar, but there it is, recorded in the Unemployment Index. I do not know where they get the 9 per cent., but they state that 109 per cent. of the male insured population is unemployed. There must be a mistake. It nevertheless indicates what the Minister of Labour thinks about some of the Special Areas. It is true that in a very large mining centre there are no fewer than 75 per cent. of the insured persons unemployed, and that at the present time in Blaina there are 55 per cent., but whatever reduction has taken place in the Special Areas, and particularly in South Wales, during the past two years, it may be attributed very largely to the transfer of persons from those areas.
I am not suggesting that there are not a few persons in work, but if hon. Members want to see the type of man that has been transferred, I suggest they should go into some of the aeroplane works, the new Government factories, or the new factories which have been established to deal with armaments. I have been in half-a-dozen of them during the past two years, and in almost every case 90 per cent. of the persons employed in them were under the age of 30 and a very large proportion of them had been transferred from the Special Areas, leaving in those areas elderly men who, unfortunately, cannot get any employment. That is the problem with which the Special Areas are confronted.
Now let me deal briefly with the winter allowance. The argument or the excuse put up by the right hon. Gentleman is really too thin. He suggested that one of the causes for the withdrawal of the 2s. a week extra allowance given to a number of persons who came under the Unemployment Assistance Board in October last year was that a new Regulation was to be introduced to legalise, or to make it possible in future, for the Unemployment Assistance Board to grant this extra allowance. The argument that there has been a reduction in the cost of living was mentioned also, but let me put it to the right hon. Gentleman—I regret very much that the hon. Member for South Croydon is leaving the Committee—upon the basis of figures given by the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon, who suggested that the average amount of the allowance, including all the discretionary payments given by the area officer, given to the applicant receiving assistance under the Unemployment Assistance Board, was 24s. a week. One can imagine why there is such a protest in the Special Areas at the withdrawal of 2s. 6d. or 3s. per week.
I am afraid that hon. Members opposite cannot fully realise what a difference 2s. or 3s. a week makes in the homes of so many people. To a person getting £4 or £5 a week, or a salary equal to that of a Member of Parliament, that amount will not be felt, but if hon. Members were living, as so many people have done for from two to seven years, upon an average income of from 22s. to 24s., and had received an increase of 2s. per week, what would their feelings be if the extra 2s. were suddenly withdrawn, as it has been?


No wonder there is such a feeling, as has been described by my hon. Friend, of disgust at the meanness of the Government and the Unemployment Assistance Board.
Reference was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) to the fact that we had had four years of the Unemployment Assistance Board, during which time regulations have been made regulating the lives of all the men who have passed out from standard benefit and who have come under the Board. The total population of those men and their families is from 1,800,000 to 2,000,000 persons. That is the family controlled by the Regulations which were passed by this House, recommended by the Board and accepted by the Minister. It can be argued that the Minister cannot hold himself responsible for the doings of the Board, but I do not know that he can dissociate himself from the actions of the Board. His predecessor did not hesitate to do so, and when he applied Regulations and discovered that he had inflicted injustice upon unemployed people he withdrew them without hesitation and overthrew the Assistance Board. He came to this House, which supported him. Let the right hon. Gentleman remember that these Regulations are, in the main, little better than those which the anger of the people compelled the Government at that time to withdraw. There is very little difference. They do not differ in the allowance for husband and wife or for children up to 14 years of age. There is no difference in the amount allowed for a single man living at home or in the amount allowed for lodgers. The only difference is a slight variation in the amount of household expenses allowed under the operation of the means test to persons who are earning.
Who, on the Government side of the Committee, is prepared to come down into a Special Area in which there is such a large percentage of men under the Unemployment Assistance Board, and to defend those allowances? Let us see what they are: Husband and wife without any resources, 26s. a week, out of which at least a quarter has to be paid in rent; that is 6s. 6d., leaving 19s. 6d. for the husband and wife to maintain themselves. Husband and wife with resources—if

there is just one child it is a resource— are reduced to 24s. a week. Husband and wife with two children, one under five years and one between five and eight years, 30s. 6d. a week, out of which 7s. 6d. per week has to be paid in rent. This is not an income which continues for only a week or a fortnight; it has been going on for the last four or five or six years in many homes. The result is that these people are not living upon their resources—they are not living at all.
In the Special Areas the feeling against these Regulations is such that they cannot be defended. I can quite understand hon. Members opposite being indifferent, because they really do not know. Let us see where the districts are which suffer most from these Regulations. London, with all the southern counties—Kent, Surrey, Buckingham, Essex, Middlesex, Bedfordshire, Sussex, and parts of others —has, in the whole of that area, just 39,000 persons under the control of the Unemployment Assistance Board, out of an insured population of some 3,000,000. In my own district of Cardiff, which covers one-half of Glamorgan, we have no fewer than 45,000 persons under the control of the Unemployment Assistance Board. Birmingham, which includes the whole of the Midland area, has 15,000 persons under the Board; Swansea has 25,000; Bristol, covering Gloucestershire, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, has 19,000; while Newport, represented by the hon. Member opposite, has 25,000 persons under the Board. All of these are subjected to the means test; and the fact that they come under the Board indicates that they have been unemployed for a long period.
I do not want to be too sentimental, but it is as well that I should read the statement of someone who visited some of these homes in one of our worst areas. She says that she called upon one family who were subjected to these Regulations. She saw one child who was well under four feet tall, and tiny in proportion. It appeared that the child's mother was dead, and her father was unemployed; and their state of poverty was so great that she had not even a bed to sleep on, but only a sack of straw. Her midget size is the result of sheer starvation. She was just leaving school, and was a prize, scholar, but there is no future of any kind


before her; there is no one to help her get employment, and there she is. The same lady records the case of another young woman who was expecting her first baby, and whom they tried to persuade to attend the clinic owing to a suspected abnormality. She allowed several weeks to pass before going, and it was found afterwards that the reason why she had not gone was because she had never been able to save enough to pay the return bus fare of 6d. to the clinic, and was not well enough to walk. Is it any wonder that we feel as strongly on this matter as we do? The lady who conducted that investigation was the lady who fought Pontypridd as the National Government candidate at a by-election quite recently, and it is no wonder that she was defeated by an overwhelming majority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) referred to a resolution passed by the South Wales Miners' Federation, representing 120,000 miners, protesting against these cuts. Not only has that resolution been passed by the South Wales Miners' Federation, but the clergy of South Wales have been conducting a crusade in certain industrial parts of the Rhondda. Even the Church has to realise that people cannot worship on an empty stomach. Such a large proportion of people are so concerned about the mere getting of bread that they have very little time for spiritual matters. These clergy passed last week a very strong resolution protesting against the action of the right hon. Gentleman, and not only that, but an advisory committee set up under the Act of 1934, the Pontypridd Advisory Committee, which was brought in to ease down these cuts, and to which applicants could apply, itself passed a resolution protesting against the cuts imposed by the Unemployment Assistance Board. I have before me resolutions passed by seven Conservative clubs in the Rhondda Valley, each suggesting the sending of hundreds of postcards to the right hon. Gentleman protesting against the Regulations of the Unemployment Assistance Board. That is why we feel that if the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) and other hon. Members opposite would only take the trouble to go down and investigate some of these cases on the spot they would not require to be told the conditions by us, but would be absolutely converted to the withdrawal of these Regulations.
The work of the right hon. Gentleman and the Unemployment Assistance Board and the Government may be regarded by some people, their own supporters, as being clever. It has saved money, but to hundreds of thousands of people who come under the operation of these Regulations it is known to be cruel, and, indeed, cowardly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer reports a saving of £8,500,000. There is no doubt that some of it has been saved as the result of a reduction in the number of persons coming under the Unemployment Assistance Board, but a substantial proportion has been saved —not saved, but robbed from people who could ill afford that it should be taken from them. I dare say the Minister will remember these verses, which must be well known to him—
 Wealth won by others' poverty,
Not such be mine. Let me be blest
Only in what they share with me,
And what I share with all the rest.
That is the motto we would like the right hon. Gentleman and the Board to take up. In my division, at the present time, it is not only the cut of 2s. 6d. a week that has been made, but over the last nine months there has been a gradual scaling down, a liquidation of the standstill, as a result of the cleverness with which the right hon. Gentleman and the Unemployment Assistance Board have applied those cuts. They have not divided the unemployed up into two sections, as in the 1934 Act, but from November, 1936, they have divided them into four sections. They knew the cuts could not be imposed as in 1935, when there was such an outburst throughout the country that they had to withdraw them, but they employed a strategy which would make one think that they were not dealing with their own fellow-countrymen but with the enemies of the State. First, they said that all who were entitled to the increase should get it. Then they applied cuts to single men, and after the single men the married men. Then, in October of last year, they decided to increase the winter allowance by 2s. or 2s. 6d. a week. In my division we have seen cuts of: October, 2s. 6d. a month; November, 2s. 6d. a month—with the result that yesterday everyone in my district was down on the Regulations.
If the Regulations were as good as the Minister of Labour suggested they were


when he introduced them in 1935, when he got the House to pass them, why was it that he did not apply them at once? It has taken him two years to bring them into operation. If they were worth anything, they would have been brought into operation at that time. In the main, the persons who are suffering as the result of these Regulations are men over 45 years of age and single men. Let it be said, in fairness to the Regulations, that, for the married man between 25 and 35 or 40, with a young family, without any person working, and without any resources, there is very little difference between the Regulations and unemployment benefit.
Let the Committee imagine that I am an unemployed worker, and have a son earning £2 10s. a week. Although he may at some time have given £2 10s. a week into the family pool, the Unemployment Assistance Board imagine that, because he is earning that amount, it goes into the family pool. It does not. He may give his mother 25s. out of his £2 10s., and he may be saving money or have to meet other expenses, but because my son earns £2 10s. a week the allowance for myself and my wife is reduced from 24s. to 7s. a week. Does the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon support that? If I have two sons working, one earning £2 10s. a week and the other £2, I receive no allowance at all. If I was working and had a son of 21 unemployed, and I earned £2 5s. a week, not only would the Board and the Minister regulate my son's scale but they would also regulate my wages. The Minister would tell me that I could have 8s. a week pocket money out of my £2 5s. and that my wife and I must live on 24s. a week, plus the 8s. a week, making 32s., and that anything in excess of 24s. must go towards maintaining my unemployed son of 21 years of age.
It is the men whose sons are living at home who are suffering. Who are these men? They have contributed more in their lifetime to the wealth and the domestic comfort of the nation than any other section of the community. They are the men who delve in the mines, face all dangers and are not afraid to face a "Gresford" or a "Markham." They are the men who do the work and fight the battles of this nation. They are the men who ought to be able to look to this nation for support, when the nation can-

not find them sufficient work to enable them to maintain themselves. I cannot find words adequately to express my condemnation of the treatment of these men.
The right hon. Gentleman in September last conducted an inquiry with regard to the condition of men over 45. In my district there were 2,000 such men without any prospect of employment. Had they been policemen and had served 25 years, or had they been civil servants or school teachers, they would have received a pension, and have been treated quite differently. The Unemployment Assistance Board, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) rightly said, is not serving a useful purpose at all. A Board which continues to work for the purpose of harassing and depressing the standard of life of the unemployed of this country ought not to be allowed to exist. I am not placing the whole of the responsibility on the Board. The right hon. Gentleman and the Government have their responsibility, and the right hon. Gentleman should face up to the position. It is no use his excusing himself. The suffering which undoubtedly exists at the present time is caused by the Government, who should be ashamed to allow it to continue.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: The hon. Member for Abrader (Mr. G. Hall), who always speaks with great sincerity and feeling on these matters, began his eloquent speech by suggesting to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) that he should listen to the other side of the story. Before I sit down I hope to show to the Committee that there is another side to this story, and to show that so far from the Unemployment Assistance Board's policy being a policy of meanness it is a policy under which the able-bodied unemployed in this country have never as a whole been as well treated as they are being treated now under the Unemployment Assistance Board and as a result of the Regulations of certain features of which the liquidation was completed on Saturday after a period of 18 months. The Debate has had more than one remarkable feature, but the most remarkable feature of all has been that from 10 minutes to four this afternoon until 23 minutes past 10 o'clock, although we have had a score


of speeches on this very important matter, no mention whatever has been made of the liquidation so successfully accomplished last Saturday, until the hon. Member for Aberdare mentioned it. That is a very remarkable fact, because if there had been the intense feeling throughout the country which hon. Members have suggested, it would not have been possible for a single hon. Member to have spoken to-night without referring to it.
The hon. Member has put one side of the story and I propose to put the other. The fact is that the Unemployment Assistance Board, as a result of the successful liquidation during the last 18 months, will now have to deal with one set of Regulations, applied to the circumstances and needs of individual cases, and not two. The Government, not with any sinister motive, as the hon. Member suggests, but with a sincere motive, realising that there were certain authorities in this country which under the old system of transitional payment had never attempted to carry out the law, never attempted to determine need, but had gone to the maximum in every case allowed by law, while the great majority of others had done their duty, and realising also that there would be hardship in altering the scales, determined that the transition from two sets of scales to one set should take 18 months. That was done for one purpose only, to avoid hardship, and to give local advisory committees in every area the right and the opportunity to give advice as to how this could be done in order to avoid hardship in area after area.
What has been the effect? Some advisory committees recommended a transition to one scale in six months, some in nine months, some in a year, and some wanted the whole period to run, but, whatever advice was given by an individual advisory committee, it was accepted by the Board. The hon. Member for Aberdare must not attack this Government as though we were the first Government to deal with this subject. For hundreds of years this has been one of the most difficult subjects in a country which has desired to do its best for unemployed people. I could prove that that was so from the time of Queen Elizabeth onwards.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Adam.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member and I will have to make a sermon about that. I understand that the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) does not like my sermons, but I believe that his constituents do, for they have done me the honour of asking me to come down more than once. This is a subject which is bound to arouse feeling, but any hon. Member who surveys the whole case, and considers what happened to hundreds of thousands of able-bodied unemployed applicants, and compares the treatment which they received when they were not the responsibility of the central Government or a central Board, but of over 200 local authorities, having 200 different systems of treatment, with the treatment which they are now receiving from the new Board, will agree with me that the Board has handled this problem with great sympathy and that on the whole the scales have worked out in a very remarkable way. I remember that two years ago the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) stood at that Box, in a very different atmosphere, and made a firm prophecy that the new Regulations would mean 400,000 cuts. When I dissented, he was very vehement. What happened was that the new Regulations, in the early days, gave increases, to nearly 250,000 of the Board's applicants, and reductions were made in the case of between 60,000 and 90,000.
That is the other side of the story. The explanation is a very simple one. It is not true to say, as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) said recently in a speech in the House, that the Government have been saving at the expense of the unemployed. Before I close my remarks, I will prove by figures that the average rate paid per applicant is higher now than at any time during the last six years. It is now 24s. 5d. per applicant, whereas when the Board took over, with 800,000 clients, over 700,000 of whom were being paid, it was 22s. 11d. The saving has not been at the expense of the unemployed. Owing to the fact that the hard core of unemployment, about which much has been said in the Debate, has gone down steadily during the last three years, it now being smaller than at any time except in January and February of this year, there are nearly 200,000 fewer


applicants, and the total sum paid is less than we had estimated before the beginning of the last financial year.
The saving has not been at the expense of the individual applicants of the Board, but has been due to the improvement in the total unemployment position; and, the most gratifying feature of all, to the fact that the hard core of long-term unemployment—those who have, unfortunately, been out of work for more than 12 months —is now down to 279,000. The Board's applicants have gone down steadily from 700,000 to 600,000, and, in the latest figure, to 555,000. It is on that account that less money is being spent and it is not accurate to say that there is a saving at the expense of the unemployed.
I wish to reply to some of the individual questions which have been put in the course of this Debate, before I turn to major issues on the work of the Board itself and the question of the hard core of unemployment. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) and the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. D. Foot) asked about the Board's report. I expect to receive the report in the early days of June and to have it published well before the middle of June, so that there will be plenty of time this year, if Members in the two Opposition parties desire to raise the issue after the report has been published, of having a major discussion on the whole problem of the Board and of this legislation.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street said that junior instruction centres in Durham were called "dole schools." I am sorry to hear that, but I do not think that those who know most about the work of the junior instruction centres share that view. When I was in Durham during the autumn, I had the advantage of a long talk with those responsible— members of the hon. Gentleman's own party, in the local education authorities and in the county council committees in Durham—for the admirable centres which are being run there. What was their suggestion to me, made for publication and published in the local Press? So far from calling them "dole schools," so far from desiring to cut down the service, they suggested that it would be of advantage to increase the age from 18 upwards, instead of retaining it at 16 to 18. I listen always with the most pro-

found respect to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street when he speaks of Durham, but I am bound to call attention to the fact that while what he said on this matter represents his own views, and while other Members of his party may agree with him, those who are concerned with the local administration of this great service, do not share those views. No man who has seen two things about those centres will mind what label they have. The first is the actual work done, and the second is the fact, which I am able to reveal after an analysis of the results, that the proportion of those who leave the centres to go into posts and who return again to unemployment is a very small fraction of the total. That is a remarkable piece of work done for the youth of the country.
As regards the elderly men, I have heard to-day the word "complacency" used several times. I can assure hon. Members that there has never been any complacency in my mind and there is none now. It is very easy to bandy about a word like "complacency," but I do not think that any action, legislative or administrative, of mine, can be cited to prove the general loose charge of complacency which has been made. But I say this: It is not enough to seek, as we are seeking, to deal with the problem of what we shall do for the men who are now middle-aged. We have to consider also what we can do to direct administration so as to prevent the people who are now young, from growing to middle age without having acquired that skill which is the best assurance that they will not fall into the long-term section of able-bodied unemployed when they do reach middle age—as has happened to so many of those who had the unfortunate experience of the post-War depression.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street asked me a specific question about the future of the Special Areas Act. At the moment it is too early to give an answer to that question. As the hon. Member knows, the Act will come to an end in March, 1939, and well before that time the Government will have to announce their policy with regard to it. It is notable that in all quarters of the Committee the very people whose voices were previously raised in disparagement of the Special Areas legislation and in denunciation of all we are doing, are now rather


troubled as to whether or not this disparaged legislation is to be continued. The House as a whole will note that and will put it into the scales against a good deal of general denunciation.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street put the issue as between Part I and Part II of the Act very squarely, and I desire to meet the issue squarely. To me the most remarkable thing in the last four years is this. The Radicals of the Left, whether below the Gangway or above— [HON. MEMBERS: "Or there."]—or here —the Radicals inside and outside the House of every shade of so-called Left opinion for 30 years have been demanding one thing for the able-bodied unemployed. It is that they should be taken out of the grip of the public assistance authorities and be put in charge of the central Government. Now the Radicals here having done it, the Radicals over there do not like it. It is no use for Members to say, "We meant the Government to take them over; we did not mean a Board of four."
I have read many documents about this, and I will say this: It is all very well to demand this, but in what form are you going to determine need? That is the problem we were set to solve. I venture on a prophecy, and I think my prophecy will very likely be much more accurate than the prophecy of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street about the cuts that will take place. Whatever hon. Members say about the Board and about the test of need, I think it very likely that I shall never live to see them either abolish the Board or do away with the test of need. Part II of the Act, about the policy of which hon. Members opposite complain, is the policy advocated by parties of the Left inside and outside the House for 30 years, and now it is an established fact.
Watching it very closely during the last three years, seeing it centrally and locally, and having to answer for the Board, for whose actual day-to-day actions I have no direct responsibility, although I answer for them in the House and I do not desire to shirk the Government's responsibility for policy, I will say this: There are 615 Members of this House, and if we sent each Member a questionnaire and asked what his experience and that of his constituents was of the treatment of the able-bodied unemployed by the Board and its officers, there

is not a Member who would deny that they have done their very utmost to administer what is a great improvement on previous practice, with a most intense and sympathetic regard to the well-being of the unfortunate able-bodied unemployed. There is another way of testing it. Every Minister concerned with social problems has a quick way of testing these matters. He knows within a week if there is any deep feeling about a particular subject. His post-bag will tell him. Our correspondence from Members of the House on this matter is a mere trickle. That is a silent proof that, so far from being heartless and cruel, we did in 1934 and 1936 apply our minds to this hardest of social problems with a considerable amount of success.
The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley) and one or two others raised the question of dismissals at 18. There are two sides to that problem. First of all, we do everything we can to ensure that young people do not go to what we call blind-alley employment. Secondly, when it is a question of transferring them, we never send them into blind-alley employment. Before we consent to subsidising their transfer we insist upon having a guarantee of progressive employment. There is also an industrial side to it. There are plenty of industries which provide only a certain number of openings for adults. The Co-operative Societies show a very admirable practice in this matter. They recognise fully that in the structure of their business there will be a lot of young people coming in who will have to go at 18. They do a very wise thing. I wish all industries did it. When they take them on—

Mr. Jagger: The right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Co-operative movement do that? It is only some people in it.

Mr. Brown: I am pointing out that the Co-operative movement—

Mr. Jagger: I must insist. It does not. Some few of them do. The Co-operative movement does not.

Mr. Brown: There are cases which have been brought to the notice of the House, and are on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT, where certain Co-operative organisations have done it. In such cases they have also given young people's parents notice before they took them on that there


would not be a job after 18, so they knew when they took them on that it was a short term job.
The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) and one or two others raised important questions about customary holidays and special schemes. I have put all these problems to the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee for their advice and they have sent out a questionnaire asking for evidence. No doubt they will be able to have the evidence of the hon. Member and of course they will get it from the representative council of the flour milling industry. These are difficult and complicated problems. The terms of reference are such that the problems incidental to this complicated business will be brought out in the course of examination by the Statutory Committee.
The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) asked me for the figure of those over 50 years of age who have been unemployed for 12 months or more. The answer is that on 4th April 279,000 persons altogether were registered as having been unemployed for 12 months or more. According to the last figure I have, which was ascertained in a special examination in November and February, there were 114,689 who were over 50. I have had some correspondence with the hon. Member about the 1s. 1d. There is rather a difference between the 1s. 6d. and the 1s.1d., because the one is supplementation and the other is part of a total scale. If he is not satisfied with the answer which I gave him I shall be glad to take the matter up again, but the question of supplementation to benefit is not an easy one.
The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) asked, I understand, about payments in kind. I am afraid that I have no time to go into that in detail now, but I will pursue it on another occasion. In reply to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) regarding under-employment in Lancashire and the difficult circumstances existing there, I do not care to raise any false hopes, but, as he knows, I have given a lot of thought to this matter, and there is a Lancashire problem in connection with it as well as a Ministry problem. I am having another look at it from the benefit angle, and I will pursue my inquiries further because I do agree that it is one of the cases for the giving of aid if we can find a way of

doing it in the circumstances of the industry.
Let me say two things now about the major problem. The hon. Member for Aberdare asked me whether I could defend an allowance of 10s. for a young man at home. Sitting by his side is the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison).

Mr. Ellis Smith: That does not make it right.

Mr. Brown: It is the simplest form of political argument to say, "This is a figure, can you defend it?" The answer is that we have to consider these figures in regard to three things: First, the whole problem of the individual and the household of the individual; second, the question not only of the man who is out of work but the man in work; third, we have to do what we think, after surveying the whole of the circumstances, is the fairest thing for all concerned, and that is what we have done. Anybody who will compare the scales of the Board with other scales will find that they can be justified, and justified anywhere. As to the winter allowance, nobody who has protested against the withdrawal of the winter allowance in the month of May would have thought in the month of October that, for the first time, nearly half the able-bodied unemployed in this country coming under the Unemployment Assistance Board would receive a winter allowance, an addition of some 2s. or so. What are the facts in two sentences? There are only 19 principal public authorities in Great Britain which give an extra winter allowance, and in no case is the winter allowance bigger than we have given, with the exception of one case in which it is fractionally larger. The last fact is that in every case, except in the town of Dunfermline, the period of the winter allowance is shorter than that adoptd by the Board. It will be my duty to bring in later a new Regulation, and then we shall debate the whole subject again.

Mr. Lawson: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.

Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £14,836,900 be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 197.

Division No. 211.]
AYES
[10.59 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Owen, Major G.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Groves, T. E.
Paling, W.


Adamson, W. M.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Parkinson, J. A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pearson, A.


Banfield, J. W.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) 
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Barnes, A. J.
Hardie, Agnes
Price, M. P.


Barr, J.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pritt, D. N.


Batey, J.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Bellenger, F. J.
Hayday, A.
Ridley, G.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Riley, B.


Benson, G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ritson, J.


Bromfield, W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hopkin, D.
Sexton, T. M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jagger, J.
Shinwell, E.


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Silkin, L.


Cape, T.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cocks, F. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cove, W. G.
Kirby, B. V.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, C.


Daggar, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dalton, H.
Leach, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leonard, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leslie, J. R.
Tomlinson, G.


Day, H.
Logan, D. G.
Viant, S. P.


Dobbie, W.
Lunn, W.
Walkden, A. G.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.
Walker, J.


Ede, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McGovern, J.
Watson, W. McL.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MacLaren, A.
Welsh, J. C.


Foot, D. M.
Maclean, N.
Westwood, J.


Frankel, D.
MacNeill Weir, L.
White, H. Graham


Gallacher, W.
Marklew, E.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Gardner, B. W.
Marshall, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Garro Jones, G. M, 
Maxton, J.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Messer, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Montague, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Muff, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Naylor, T. E. 



Grenfell, D. R.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Anderson.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Gluckstein, L. H.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Gower, Sir R. V


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Grant-Ferris, R.


Albery, Sir Irving 
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Grimston, R. V.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) 
Cox, H. B. Trevor 
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Crooke, Sir J. S.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thane[...]
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Crossley, A. C.
Hambro, A. V.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm h)
Crowder, J. F. E.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Bernays, R. H.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Davidson, Viscountess
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Bossom, A. C.
Davies, C. (Montgomery) 
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.


Boulton, W. W.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Denville, Alfred 
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Brass, Sir W.
Doland, G. F.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Higgs, W. F.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Holmes, J. S.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Dunglass, Lord 
Hopkinson, A.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Eastwood, J. F.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Bull, B. B.
Ellis, Sir G.
Hunter, T.


Burghley, Lord 
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Hutchinson, G. C.


Butcher, H. W.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Errington, E.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Everard, W. L.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Cazalet, Capt, V. A. (Chippenham) 
Fildes, Sir H.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Channon, H.
Fleming, E. L.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Furness, S. N.
Kimball, L.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Clarry Sir Reginald
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley) 
Latham, Sir P.







Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J,
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Spans. W. P.


Leech, Sir J. W.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Peake, O.
Storey, S.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Peat, C. U.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Liddall, W. S.
Perkins, W. R. O.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Lindsay, K. M.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Lipson, D. L.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Pilkington, R.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Locker-Lampion, Comdr. O. S.
Procter, Major H. A.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Loftus, P. C.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Rankin, Sir R.
Turton, R. H.


MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Macdonald, Capt. T. (Isle of Wight)
Road, A. C. (Ex[...]r)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Reid, Sir D. O. (Down)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


McKie, J. H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsand)


Macnamara, Major J. R. J.
Renter, J. R.
Warrender, Sir V.


Magnay, T.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Makina, Brig.-Gen. E.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wells, S. R.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Markham, S. F.
Rowlanda, G.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Maxwell, Han. S. A.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Salmon, Sir I.
Wise, A. R.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Salt, E. W.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Sandys, E. D.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Moreing, A. C.
Scott, Lord William
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Selley, H. R.



Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Nail, Sir J.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Captain Hope and Mr. Munro.


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

Original Question again proposed.

Mr. Logan: rose—

It being after Eleven of the Clock and objection being taken to further Proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (HOURS OF POLL) BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned according at Thirteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.